Holding

The Supreme Court held that the phrase "by the direction of the testator" is an alternative, not a mandatory, condition under Section 63(c), and the Will is valid as the witness saw the testator affix his mark.

Summary

The appellant Gopal Krishan claimed title to a one‑quarter share of land in Gurdaspur based on a Will executed by the deceased Sanjhi Ram on 7 November 2005, which was subsequently transferred and sold. The respondents challenged the Will, alleging it was forged and that the attesting witness had not testified that the thumb impression was affixed at the direction of the testator, a requirement they said was mandated by Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925. The High Court held the Will unproved and set aside the lower appellate court's decision, while the lower court had upheld the Will's validity. The Supreme Court examined the statutory language of Section 63(c) and held that the word "or" makes the "direction of the testator" a separate, optional circumstance, not a mandatory condition when a witness has seen the testator affix his mark. Since the witness testified that he saw the testator affix his thumb impression, the statutory requirement was satisfied and the Will was valid. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment, restored the lower appellate court's decision, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

What is the meaning and scope of the phrase "by the direction of the testator" in Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925?
Whether the Will of Sanjhi Ram satisfies the attestation requirements of Section 63(c) despite the witness not expressly stating that the thumb impression was made at the testator's direction?
Whether the High Court erred in holding that the Will was not proved and consequently set aside the lower appellate court's judgment?

Legislation cited

Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 63

Subjects

WillTestatorMental facultiesAttesting WitnessesDirection of the TestatorAttestor to the WillSection 63 of Succession Act, 1925

Judgment

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 93 : 2025 INSC 18

Gopal Krishan & Ors.
v.
Daulat Ram & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 13192 of 2024)
02 January 2025
[C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and order of the High
Court dated 26.03.2018 whereby it has been held that the Will,
subject matter of controversy, allegedly of one Testator-SR, had
not been proved, thereby finding that the Lower Appellate Court
had erred in holding otherwise.

Headnotes†
Succession Act, 1925 – s.63 – SR-Testator was the owner
of 1/4th share of a land – The Testator had no children and
resided with his nephew appellant-GK – He executed a Will
on 07.11.2005 and passed away the next day on 08.11.2005 –
Having received the said land/property by the virtue of the
said Will, the appellant transferred the same in favour of his
four sons – Thereafter, the said property was sold jointly –
Respondent nos.1 to 7 herein filed a suit seeking declaration
to the effect inter alia that the Will dated 07.11.2005 was forged
and fabricated – Trial Court held that the Will cannot be relied
on – The Will was held to be valid and genuine by the Lower
Appellate Court, so also it was held that the consequent sale
deeds cannot be held invalid – However, the High Court held
that the Will had not been proved – Correctness:
Held: The view taken by the High Court is that the attesting
witness, in his deposition, did not state that the act of affixing his
thumb impression on the Will subject matter of dispute was at the
direction of the Testator and, therefore, the requirement stipulated
u/s. 63 of the Act was not met – The language of Section 63(c)
of the Act uses the word ‘OR’ – It states that each Will shall be
attested by two or more witnesses who have seen the Testator sign
or affix his mark on the Will OR has seen some other persons sign

* Author
94 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator OR
has received a personal acknowledgment from the Testator of his
signature or mark etc – What flows therefrom is that the witnesses
who have attested the Will ought to have seen the Testator sign
or attest his mark OR have seen some other persons sign the Will
in the presence of and on the direction of the Testator – In the
instant case, the testimony of DW-1 is clear that he had seen the
deceased affix his mark on the Will – That alone would ensure
compliance of Section 63(c) – The part of the Section that employs
the term ‘direction’ would come into play only when the attestor to
the Will would have to see some other person signing the Will –
Such signing would explicitly have to be in the presence and
upon the direction of the Testator – The requirement of law while
undoubtedly present, was not of concern in the instant dispute –
On that count, the High Court to have erred in law – As such the
impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside – The Judgment
of the First Appellant Court stand restored – Consequently, the Will
of SR is valid and so are the subsequent Sale Deeds executed
by GK. [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]

Case Law Cited
Meena Pradhan and Others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another (2023)
9 SCC 734; Shivakumar and Others v. Sharanabasappa and Others
[2020] 6 SCR 666 : (2021) 11 SCC 277 – relied on.
Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Mandeo Kadam [2002] Supp.
5 SCR 175 : (2003) 2 SCC 91; Kanwaljit Kaur v. Joginder
Singh Badwal (deceased through LRs) RSA No. 5252 of 2012;
Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Ors. [2016] 3
SCR 1018 : (2016) 6 SCC 157 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
Justice G.P Singh’s treatise, ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation

List of Acts
Succession Act, 1925

List of Keywords
Will; Testator; Mental faculties; Attesting Witnesses; Direction of the
Testator; Attestor to the Will; Section 63 of Succession Act, 1925.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 95

Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13192 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2018 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1935 of 2015

Appearances for Parties
T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Siddharth
Vasudev, Advs. for the Appellants.
Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Manav Bhalla, Sidhant Awasthy,
Siddhant Saroha, Praveer Singh, Abhijeet Chaudhary, Advs. for
the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sanjay Karol J.

1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and order of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in RSA No. 1935 of 2015 dated 26th
March 2018 whereby it has been held that the Will, subject matter
of controversy, allegedly of one Sanjhi Ram, had not been proved,
thereby finding that the Lower Appellate Court1 had erred in holding
otherwise. The said Lower Appellate Court had set aside the decree
of the Civil Court2 which had found that the Will and the subsequent
mutation of the properties enumerated therein was bad in law, as
the Will was “illegal ”, “null ” and “void ”. The question that falls for
our consideration is-
“What do the words “by the direction of the testator” as
they appear in Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 mean? Is the term to be interpreted liberally
or strictly? Consequently, was the High Court correct in
holding, in agreement with the Civil Court, that the Will,
subject matter of dispute, stood not proved?”

1 Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2011, judgment dated 5th September 2014 delivered by The Court of Additional
District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur.
2 Civil Suit No. 282 of 2006, judgment dated 24th February 2011 delivered by Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Gurdaspur.
96 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

2. Facts, shorn of unnecessary details, as they appear from the record
are as follows: -
2.1 Sanjhi Ram,3 was the owner of 1/4th share of land measuring
40 canals, 3 marlas, comprised in Khewat no.7, Khatauni no.9,
Rett no. 9, Kila no. 9/8 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village
Umarpura, Khurd, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, Punjab. His
share in the aforesaid property was to the extent of 10 canals
and 1 marla.4
2.2 The Testator had no children and resided with his nephew Gopal
Krishan.5 He executed a Will on 7th November 2005 and passed
away the next day on 8th November 2005. The death certificate
issued by the competent authority is dated 19th November 2005.
2.3 Having received the property by virtue of the aforesaid Will,
the appellant transferred the same in favour of his four sons
viz., Ravinder Kumar; Rajinder Kumar; Satish Kumar and Roop
Lal vide Sale Deed dated 16th January 2006. The said property
was sold jointly for a sum of Rs.98,000/- to Madhu Sharma
and Meena Kumari, vide Sale Deed dated 3rd February 2006.
2.4 Respondent nos.1 to 7 herein filed a Suit bearing No. 282 of
2006 before the Civil Court, seeking declaration to the effect
inter alia (i) that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) were the
owners of Sanjhi Ram’s 1/4th share; (ii) that the Will dated
7th November 2005 was forged and fabricated; and (iii) that
the mutation carried out subsequent to the execution of such
a Will is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs.
2.5 By way of written statement dated 24th April 2006 the contentions
made in the plaint were denied.
3. The Trial Court framed seven issues primarily pertaining to,
(a) validity of the Will subject matter of the present lis; (b) whether
the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the
suit; and (c) whether the plaintiffs have the locus standi to file the
suit and whether the same is maintainable, within limitation and filed
with sufficient court fees, being affixed thereto.

3 Testator
4 Suit property
5 Hereafter appellant no.1
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 97

Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors.

3.1 Of primary importance to the present adjudication is the findings
qua issue no.1. The relevant extracts from the judgment of the
Civil Court are as below:-
“10. On going through the file I find it has been admitted
by the witnesses of the defendants that Sanjhi Ram
remained ill. The claim of the Plaintiffs is that he died on
7.11.2005 and the claim of the Defendants that the died
on 8.11.2005. The defendants did not being the death
certificate of Shri Sanjhi Ram on the file and thus failed
to rebut the contention of the Plaintiffs. The visit of Sanjhi
Ram at Tehsil Gurdaspur on 7.11.2005 and then executing
the Will on the said day without any registration of the
same and adjustment of lines on the page in the lower
portion and further adjusting the seal by the scribe in the
left margin and further the place the thumb mark alleged
to be of Sanjhi Ram make the will suspicious which cannot
be relied on.”
4. On appeal the Lower Appellate Court relied on a judgment returned
by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and
one judgment of the Rajasthan High Court to hold that even if the
Testator was ill, so long as his mental faculties were not affected, no
inference could be drawn that he was not of sound state of mind or
that he could not execute a Will. In the facts of the instant case, it
was observed that nowhere did the case record reflect that Sanjhi
Ram’s mental faculties were in any way questionable nor was he
disoriented or affected by illness. In regard to other observations of
the Civil Court reproduced (supra) the Lower Appellate Court held
as under:-
“16. As noted above, learned Lower Court had found
the Will Ex.D1 suspicious also for the reason that the
spacing in between last lines in this Will was narrower
than the space available between lines in remaining
upper part of this Will. In this context learned counsel
for the appellants has relied upon Judgment Bahadur
Singh versus Poonam Sin h & Ors, (Supra) which applies
to the facts of the case in hand. Vide it Hon’ble High
Court categorically observed that merely because the
spacing of last two three lines is less than the earlier
lines it cannot be said that the Will is not genuine. To
98 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

accommodate writing in one page, sometimes last lines
are written closely and therefore such circumstances
should not be considered as adverse circumstances. In
the case in hand also Will Ex.P1 is on a single page.
Moreover, the lines on more than two third of this page
have equal spacing between them. It is in the last 1/3rd
part of the page of Will that spacing goes on narrowing.
When the Will is on a single page only narrowing of
space towards end of the writing has to be taken as a
natural phenomenon.”
Having observed as above, the Will was held to be valid and genuine,
so also it was held that the consequent sale deeds cannot be held
invalid. The judgment of the lower Court was set aside.
5. In second appeal the High Court found that: -
(A) The reduction of space while concluding the Will had “totally
escaped the notice of the Court’s below ”, and that this was a
glaring illegality and perversity. The attesting witness, Janak
Raj (DW-1) had not stated in his examination that his thumb
print had been appended to the Will upon the direction of the
Testator which is a requirement in law. For such a conclusion,
reliance was placed on Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan
Mandeo Kadam 6 and the Judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court titled Kanwaljit Kaur v. Joginder Singh Badwal
(deceased through LRs).7
(B) Placing reliance on the Constitution Bench Judgment of this
Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and
Ors.,8 the Court without framing substantial questions of law set
aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. The appeal
preferred by the present respondents was thus allowed.
6. Having traversed the Courts below as aforesaid, the dispute stands
before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6 [2002] Supp. 5 SCR 175 : (2003) 2 SCC 91
7 RSA No.5252 of 2012
8 [2016] 3 SCR 1018 : (2016) 6 SCC 157
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 99

Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors.

7. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 runs thus:-
“63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.—
Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an
expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so
employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute
his Will according to the following rules:—
(a)The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will,
or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence
and by his direction.
(b)The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature
of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it
shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to
the writing as a Will.
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses,
each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his
mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign
the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the
testator, or has received from the testator a personal
acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature
of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign
the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not
be necessary that more than one witness be present at
the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall
be necessary.”
(emphasis supplied)
As seen above, Section 63(c) enumerates five distinct situations:
A is the testator of the Will in question. B and C have signed the
Will. For B and C to qualify as attestors,-

Situation 1:
Each of them has to have seen A sign the will or put his mark on it;
OR
Situation 2:
They should have seen some other person, let’s say D sign the will
in the presence of and on the direction of A;
OR
100 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Situation 3:
They ought to have received a personal acknowledgment from A to
the effect that A had signed the Will or has affixed his mark thereon;
With the use of the conjunctive, ‘and’ one further stipulation has
been provided:
B, C, D or any other witness is required to sign the Will in the
presence of A however it is not necessitated that more than one
witness be present at the same time.
The statutory language also clarifies that B and C, the attestors, are
not required to follow any particular prescribed format.
8. The requisites for proving of a Will are well established. They were
recently reiterated in a Judgment of this Court in Meena Pradhan
and others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another.9 See also Shivakumar
and Others v. Sharanabasappa and Others.10 The principles as
summarised by the former are reproduced as below:-
“…10.1. The court has to consider two aspects : firstly,
that the will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that
it was the last will executed by him;
10.2. It is not required to be proved with mathematical
accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind
has to be applied.
10.3. A will is required to fulfil all the formalities required
under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:
(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or
it shall be signed by some other person in his presence
and by his direction and the said signature or affixation
shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing
as a will;
(b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more
witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is
necessary;

9 (2023) 9 SCC 734
10 [2020] 6 SCR 666 : (2021) 11 SCC 277
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 101

Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors.

(c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the
testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some
other person sign the will, in the presence and by the
direction of the testator, or has received from the testator
a personal acknowledgment of such signatures;
(d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the will in
the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all
witnesses at the same time is not required;
10.4. For the purpose of proving the execution of the will,
at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject
to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence,
shall be examined;
10.5. The attesting witness should speak not only about
the testator’s signatures but also that each of the witnesses
had signed the will in the presence of the testator;
10.6. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of
the will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can
be dispensed with;
10.7. Where one attesting witness examined to prove
the will fails to prove its due execution, then the other
available attesting witness has to be called to supplement
his evidence;
10.8. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the
execution of the will, it is the responsibility of the propounder
to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be
accepted as the testator’s last will. In such cases, the
initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier;
10.9. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for
dealing with those cases where the execution of the will
is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires
to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as
to the content as well as the consequences, nature and
effect of the dispositions in the will; sound, certain and
disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the
time of execution; testator executed the will while acting
on his own free will;
102 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

10.10. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence
et cetera has to prove the same. However, even in the
absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances
giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the
propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by
giving a cogent and convincing explanation;
10.11. Suspicious circumstances must be “real, germane
and valid” and not merely “the fantasy of the doubting mind
[Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) 11 SCC 277] ”.
Whether a particular feature would qualify as “suspicious”
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in
nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance, for
example, a shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and
unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking
a leading part in the making of the will under which he
receives a substantial benefit, etc.”
9. This case raises the question whether the third requirement u/s 63 of
the Act stands met in the present case particularly as to the contours
of the meaning of the phrase ‘direction of the testator’.
10. The word ‘direction’, as discussed in the Cambridge Dictionary, can
be employed in various contexts – (a) giving instructions to someone
to find a particular place or location; (b) looking to an area or position
where someone is placed; (c) a sense of direction i.e., the ability
to find or locate a particular place; (d) control or instruction; and
(e) information or orders telling somebody how or what to do.
11. The present case concerns (d) and/or (e) as above. The view taken
by the High Court is that the attesting witness, in his deposition, did
not state that the act of affixing his thumb impression on the Will
subject matter of dispute was at the direction of the Testator and,
therefore, the requirement stipulated u/s 63 Iof the Act was not met.
12. The above said conclusion of the High Court is based on the testimony
of Janak Raj, who is DW-1. His testimony reads as under:-
“1. That I know both the parties. I also knew Sanjhi Ram,
Son of Shri Tulsi Ram, who was a resident of our Village. He
was residing at Gopal Krishan. Sanjhi Ram died issueless.
His wife is predeceased him. Gopal Krishan used to serve
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 103

Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors.

deceased Sanjhi Ram and was looking after him. Shri
Sanjhi Ram who was real uncle of Gopal Krishan, while
possessed of sound disposing mind, executed a valid Will
on 7.1.2005 in favour of Gopal Krishan. I have seen the
original WILL which bears my thumb impression. The WILL
is Ex.D.1. The same was scribed by the Deed Writer at
the instance of Shri Sanjhi Ram. He further scribing the
same, read over and explained the contents of the WILL
Ex.D1. Sh. Sanjhi Ram after admitting the contents of the
WILL, appended his thumb impression in my presence and
as well as in the presence of other attesting witness Sh.
Tarsem Lal and thereafter I and other attesting witness
put my thumb impression and signature respectively. On
the basis of WILL Ex.D.1 Shri Gopal Krishan defendant is
owner in possession of the land of the land of Shri Sanjhi
Ram. The Plaintiffs have got no right, title or interest in
the land let by Shri Sanjhi Ram. …”
(emphasis supplied)
13. The language of Section 63(c)of the Act uses the word ‘OR’. It states
that each Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses who have
seen the Testator sign or affix his mark on the Will OR has seen some
other persons sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of
the Testator OR has received a personal acknowledgment from the
Testator of his signature or mark etc. What flows therefrom is that
the witnesses who have attested the Will ought to have seen the
Testator sign or attest his mark OR have seen some other persons
sign the Will in the presence of and on the direction of the Testator.
The judgment relied on by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment, i.e., Kanwaljit Kaur (supra) holds that the deposition of
the attesting witness in the said case had not deposed in accordance
with Section 63(c) of the Act, where two persons had undoubtedly
attested the Will, but the aspect of the ‘direction of the testator’ was
absent from such deposition. In the considered view of this Court,
the Learned Single Judge fell in error in arriving at such a finding
for the words used in the Section, which already stands extracted
earlier,read-“or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the
presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from
the testator a…”. That being the case, there is no reason why the
‘or’ employed therein, should be read as ‘and’. After all, it is well
104 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

settled that one should not read ‘and ’ as ‘or ’ or vice-versa unless
one is obliged to do so by discernible legislative intent. Justice G.P
Singh’s treatise, ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation’ tells us that
the word “or ” is normally disjunctive while the word “and” is normally
conjunctive. Further, it is equally well settled as a proposition of law
that the ordinary, grammatical meaning displayed by the words of the
statute should be given effect to unless the same leads to ambiguity,
uncertainty or absurdity. None of these requirements, to read a word
is which is normally disjunctive, as conjunctive herein, are present.
14. In the present case the testimony of DW-1 is clear that he had seen
the deceased affix his mark on the Will. That alone would ensure
compliance of Section 63(c). The part of the Section that employs
the term ‘direction’ would come into play only when the attestor to
the Will would have to see some other person signing the Will. Such
signing would explicitly have to be in the presence and upon the
direction of the Testator.
15. The requirement of law while undoubtedly present, was not of concern
in the instant dispute. On that count, we find the High Court to have
erred in law. As such the impugned judgment of the High Court with
the particulars as described in para 1 is set aside. The Judgment of
the First Appellant Court stand restored. Consequently, the Will of
Sanjhi Ram is valid and so are the subsequent Sale Deeds executed
by Gopal Krishan.
Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) if
any shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan