Last Updated:
The Supreme Court stated that the authenticity and enforceability of a will must be proven as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act
The court said that to prove the will’s validity, at least one credible witness must be presented. (Shutterstock)
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that simply writing and registering a will is insufficient; at least one witness must be examined during probate. The top court stated that registration alone does not guarantee the validity of a will. Proof of its validity and execution is also required.
The Supreme Court stated that a will must be proven in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish its authenticity and enforceability.
Section 63 deals with the will, while Section 68 deals with the execution of the document. The court stated that under Section 68, the examination of at least one witness is required to prove a will.
In the case of Leela and Others vs Muruganantham and Others, the Supreme Court held that the mere registration of a will is insufficient to establish its authenticity. To prove the will’s validity, at least one credible witness must be presented. The testimony of witnesses, therefore, plays a crucial role in substantiating the legitimacy of a will.
This case concerned the distribution of Balasubramaniam Thanthiriyar’s property. He had bequeathed his entire estate in four parts by will, with three parts allocated to his first wife and her children. The central issue of the dispute was the will’s validity. Both the lower court and the High Court had dismissed the appellant’s claim to the property based on the will, deeming it dubious.
Subsequently, the case reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concurred that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the will’s validity and authenticity. The top court asserted that the appellants had failed to demonstrate that the testator had executed the will with full comprehension of its contents.
The Supreme Court elaborated that the will’s ambiguity arose from contradictory statements within the document. While it claimed the testator was of sound mind and acting with full consciousness during its execution, it also mentioned the testator was suffering from a heart condition and under the care of multiple doctors. The respondent woman acknowledged her husband’s execution of the will but maintained he was not involved in its preparation. Although the notary public had read the will to the testator, he could not furnish any evidence to support this claim, according to the witness.
Source link
[ad_3]
