Holding

The Will dated 18 June 1995 was not duly executed and its probate was set aside.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a Gujarat High Court order that granted probate of a Will dated 18 June 1995 executed by the deceased Jayantilal Kataria. The appellant contended that the Will was not validly attested because Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires two or more witnesses, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 permits proof by examining only one witness, who in this case (Ranjit Singh) was alone with the testator and could not confirm that the other witness (Mavaji Viraji) had signed in his presence. The Court found that the statutory attestation requirement was not satisfied, that the evidence of the sole witness was insufficient, and that numerous suspicious circumstances surrounded the Will. Consequently, the probate was set aside. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The statutory requirement of attestation by two or more witnesses under Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 is mandatory.
Whether proof of execution and attestation of a Will can be established by examining only one attesting witness under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 when that witness does not establish the presence of the other witness.
Whether the presence of suspicious circumstances on the face of the Will defeats probate.
Whether the court may rely on presumptive evidence when statutory requirements are not fulfilled.

Legislation cited

Subjects

probatewillattestationSuccession ActEvidence Actsuspicious circumstancesmandatory statutory requirementexecution of will

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1500

LALITABEN JAYANTILAL POPAT
A
v.
PRAGNABEN JAMNADAS KATARIA & ORS. ,..
(Civil Appeal No. 7434 of 2008)

DECEMBER 19, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.)

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872:
s. 68 - Proof of execution of Will - One of the attesting ~

witnesses, who alone was examined, did not corroborate the
c declaration made in the Will by its testator that he had signed
-.\,,

before both the witnesses and that both of them signed before
him - The witness stated that he was alone with testator who
had already put his signature - HELD: It is evident that other
person did not put his signature on the Will as an attesting
D witness - Execution of Will has, therefore, not been proved -
Succession Act, 1925 - s.63.
In the instant appeal against the order granting
probate of a Will dated 18.6.1995 propounded by the y-
respondents, it was contended for the appellant that the
E requirement of attestation of the Will by two or more
witnesses as envisaged by s.63(c) of the Succession Act,
1925 were not proved in terms of s.68 of the Evidence Act,
1872.
/
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD:1.1. Provisions of s.63 of the Succession Act,
1925 are mandatory in nature. A Will is .required to be ~

attested by two or more witnesses. Section 68 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the propounder must
prove execution and attestation of the Will by examining
G at least one of the attesting witnesses. The question as
to whether due attestation has been established or not
will depend upon the fact situation in each case. [Para 9
and 16) (1506-H; 1507-A] t
Babu Singh & Ors. v. Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh 2008
H 1500
LALITABEN JAYANTILAL POPAT v. PRAGNABEN 1501
JAMNADAS KATARIA & ORS.

(7) SCALE 743; Apoline D'Souza v. John D'Souza (2007) 7 A
SCC 225 and B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh
& Ors. (2006) 13 sec 249, relied on.
1.2. It is a trite law that execution of a Will must be
held to have been proved not only when the statutory
requirements for proving the Will are satisfied but the Will .B
is also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious.
circumstances. When such evidences are brought on
record, the court may take aid of the presumptive
evidences also. Whether a Will is surrounded by
suspicious circumstances or not is essentially a question c
I
of fact. In the instant case, there were a large number of
suspicious circumstances appearing on the face of the
Will. Inferences of suspicious circumstances must be
drawn having regard to the evidence of the witness
examined. Even the statutory requirements for proof of
the Will have not been complied with. [Para 14] [1512-A- D
BJ
Ramabai Padmakar Patil (Dead) through LRs. & Ors. v.
---1 _ Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 537, held
··- inapplicable...".' -·-~,,-
1.3. In the instant case, -the Whl in question (Ext. 44) E
bears the signature of one 'MV' in Gujrati language and
one 'RS' in English. The respondents, in order to prove
execution of the Will, examined 'RS' alone. He was
working in the Agricultural Department of the State at
Gondal in the District of Rajkot. On the date of execution F
of the Will, he was at his place of work. The testator was
a resident of Jetpur. The Will admittedly was executed at
Jetpur. Attestation of the Will admittedly had taken place
only at Jetpur. A perusal of the Will shows that the said
'MV' was made an executor of the Will. The Will, however, G
has been produced from the custody of 'RS'. The Will is
supposed to have been executed in presence of both the
witnesses. A declaration is made by the testator that he
had signed before both the witnesses and only before
him both the witnesses had put their signatures. But H
1502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A witness 'RS' does not say so. He was alone with the
testator. According to him, the te~tator had already put
his signature. It is, thus, evident that at that point of time
'MV' had not put his signature on the Will as an attesting
witness. Still his name appears at Serial No.1. It has,
s· therefore, not been proved that both the attesting
.witnesses either attested the Will in presence of each
other or the testator had acknowledged his signature in
presence of both the witnesses. The fact that the other
witness 'MV' had expired on 2.5.1996, was not brought
on record before the courts below. Execution of the Will
C has, therefore, not been proved. The impugned judgment
is set aside. [Para 10, 12-13, 16 and 17] (1507-E-F; 1509-
D; 1510-A-B ; 1513-B-D]
Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, 2003
(2) SCC.91; Benga Behera & Anr. v. Braja Kishore Nanda &
D Ors. 2007 (7) SCALE 228 and Anil Kak v. Kumari Sharada
Raje & Ors. (2008) 6 SCALE 597, relied on.
Joyce Primrose Prestor (Mrs)(Nee Vas) v. Vera Marie
Vas (Ms) & Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 324, referred to. ,_,__
E 'Laws of Will in India and Pakistan', by Mantha
Ramamurthi,. at pages 81-82, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2003 (2) sec 91 relied on para 5
2007 (7) SCALE 228 relied on para 6
F (1996) 9 sec 324 referred to para 14
(2003) 8 sec 537 held inapplicable para 15
(2008) 6 SCALE 597 relied on para 16
2008 (7) SCALE 743 relied on para 16
(2007) 7 sec 225 relied on para 16
G (2006) 13 sec 249 relied on para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7434 of 2008.
/
From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.6.2006 of the
.H High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabd in First Appeal No. 110 of
LALITABEN JAYANTILAL POPAT v. PRAGNABEN 1503
JAMNADAS KATARIA & ORS.
2000 with First Appeal No. 124 of 2000. A
Jay Savla, Meenakshi Ogra and Arundhati Das for the
Appellant.
-"\
Adarsh Priyadarshi and Sumita Hazarika for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
... dated 26.6.2006 passed in FA No.11 O of 2000 and FA No.124

I
of 2000 by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissing c
appeals filed against a common judgment and order dated
23.2.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Rajkot
allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.25 of ~ 996 and
dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2006.
3. One Purshottam Manji Thakrar was the owner of the D
property. He purported to have executed a Will on or about
15.4.1978 in favour of the respondents. He left behind his two
sons (Jamnadas and Jayantilal) and two daughters (Kasturben
-+-f and Lalita - appellants herein).
Purshottam Manji Thakrar died on 30.11.1984. His wife E
had predeceased him. Jamnadas died leaving behind his wife,
Jasumati (Respondent No.3) and two daughters, Pragna and
Bina (Respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively). Jayantilal died
issueless. He was a divorcee. He purported to have executed
two Wills; one on 31.1.1995 propounded by the appellant and
the other on 18.6.1995 propounded by respondents. Kasturben F

,. died on 19.12.1995.
4. Respondents filed an application for grant of probate
of the Will dated 18.6.1995. On the other hand, appellant filed
an application for grant of probate in respect of the Will dated
31.1.1995. G
The learned District Judge granted probate in respect of
the Will dated 18.6.1995 propounded by the respondents and
\ dismissed the application for grant of probate in respect of the
Will dated 3'1.1.1995 executed by Jayantilal.
H
1504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A 5. Two appeals were preferred thereagainst. By reason of
the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the said
appeals. ,._
Although all the three aforesaid Wills, i.e., one dated
15.4.1978 executed by Purshottam Manji Thakrar in favour of
B the respondents, as also two Wills executed by Jayantilal dated
31.1.1995 and 18.6.1995 were in question, this Court by an
order dated 2.11.2006, issued a limited notice directing :
"In view of the decision of this Court in Janki Narayan
_ Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003 (2) SCC 91 ), •
c -issue notice only on the question as to whether the Will
dated 18.6.1995 was legally proved."
6. Mr. Jay Savla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant, would submit that a Will, having regard to the
provisions contained in Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession
o Act, is required to be attested by two or more witnesses and
furthermore, although in terms of Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act it is permissible to examine one witness, who
must testify to prove valid execution and attestation of the Will,
i.e., both the witnesses have signed in the presence of the
E testator or the testator has either signed in presence of one or
acknowledged his signature before the other. It was contended
that as in this case, the said legal requirements had not been
complied with, the Will in question cannot be said to have been
proved. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Janki
Narayan Bhoir (supra) and Benga Behera & Anr. v. Braja
F Kishore Nanda & Ors. [2007 (7) SCALE 228].
It was urged that a large number of suspicious
circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will by the
testator having not been explained by respondent, the Will
cannot be said to have been legally proved. These, according
G to the learned counsel; are:
"Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed suit for partition
claiming 1/3rd share on the basis of the Will of grand father
Shri Parshottam Kataria dated 15th April, 1978 and in the !
alternative under succession claiming 1/9th sriare against
H
LALITABEN JAYANTILAL POPAT v. PRAGNABEN 1505
JAMNADAS KATARIA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
deceased Jayantilal Kataria being Suit No.119/1989. A
Testator had opposed the suit amongst other grounds and
in the written statement of the testator, it was averrE}d that
_·"'\
Parshottam Kataria had in fact made last Will dated 19th
November, 1983.
In the reply dated 10th January, 2006, to Public Notice, no B
mention of Will.
In the said proceedings, on 1st January, 1996, in the
application for deletion of deceased, Respondents
-+ categorically averred that such Jayantilal Kataria had not
I executed any Will. c
Further an application dated 4th March, 1996 was filed for
impleadment in the proceeding filed by deceased Testator
against the tenant for eviction, it was reiterated that
Jayantilal Kataria had not left any Will.
In the examination-in-chief, in the Petition for probate under c:>
Section 276 filed on 8th July, 1996, no explanation about
the statement made in the earlier proceedings to the effect
that Testator had died intestate .
..... f
By the alleged .Will, the entire property has been
bequeathed to Respondents who are not Class-I legal E
heirs to the exclusion of Petitioner, Smt. Lalitaben Popat.
Deceased is resident of Rajkot whereas Respondents
were residing at Mumbai.

-.
Petitioner being younger sister was nursing the deceased F
and the relationship was very cordial."
\ It was contended that the District Judge as also the High
Court having failed and/or neglected to deal therewith, the
impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Strong reliance in this
behalf has been placed on Ram Piari v. Bhagwant & Ors. G
[(1990) 1 SCR 813]; Smt. Guro v. Atma Singh & Ors. [(1992)
~ 2 SCR 30]; Rambai Padmakar Patil (dead) v. Rukminibai
Vishnu Vekhande & Ors. [(2003) 8 SCC 537]; B. Venkatamjni
\ v. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors. [2006 (11) SCALE 148}.
7. Mr. Adarsh Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on H

-
1506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A behalf of respondent, on the other ~and, would contend:
(a) Law does not require that a Will must be proved by
two attesting witnesses.
(b) In ascertaining the genuineness of the Will, the only
requirement being that the Court must satisfy its
B conscience and as in this case all the courts have
arrived at a concurrent finding of fact, this Court
should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

c

"Section 63.-Execution of unprivileged Wills-Every
testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or
engaged in actual warfare, 1 [or an airman so employed
E or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will
· according to the following rules :- .•
(a) and (b)
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses,
F 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 of the signature of such other
person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the
G 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."
9. Indisputably, the said provision is mandatory in nature. f
A Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses.
H
LALITABEN JAYANTILAL POPAT v. PRAGNABEN 1507
JAMNADAS KATARIA & ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]

Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that the , A
propounder must prove execution and attestation of the Will by
-'""'\ examining at least one of the attesting witnesses.
What is meant by the word 'attestation' is defined in
Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as under:
Section 3.-/nterpretation-clause-ln this Act, unless there is B
something repugnant in the subject or context,-
XXX XXX XXX
"attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be
deemed always to have meant attested by two or more
witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or C
affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other
person sign the instrument in the presence and by the
direction of the executant, or has received from the
executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or
mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each D
of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the
executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one
of such witnesses shall have been present at the sam$
time, and no particular form of attestation shall be
necessary." E
10. Indisputably, the Will in question was marked as Exhibit
44. It bears the signature of one Mavaji Viraji in Gujrati language
and one Ranjit Singh in English. Respondents, in order to prove
execution of the Witl, examined Ranjit Singh alone. He wa$
working in the agricultural Department of the State at Gondal F
• in the District of Rajkot. On the date of execution of the Will, h'9
was at his place of work. The testator was a resident of Jetpur.
The Will admittedly was executed at Jetpur. Attestation of th~
Will admittedly had taken place only at Jetpur.
Ranjit Singh, in his deposition stated : G
"I know Janyatilal Purshottam Kataria. I also know
Purshottam Manaji Kataria and Jamandas Purshottam
Kataria. Jamnadas and Jayantilal are sons of Purshottam
Majaji. I have relation with whole family for the last many
H
1508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A years. I used to go to ask for the health, if any member is
sick.
The said Will mark 42/1 is the original Will executed by
Jayantilal Purshottam Kataria. Original Will is executed
upon the stamp paper worth of Rs.10/-. The name of
B Jayantilal Purshotam is upon the stamp paper as
purchaser. I am shown the signature of Jayantilal
Purshottam in the Will. I identify that this signature is of
Jayantilal Purshottam himself. This signature is put in my
presence, the signature of two witnesses are also there
in the Will dated 18.5.95. From those one signature is of
c Mavnjibhai Virjibhai and other is of myself i.e. Ranjit Singh.
I produced the said Will which is produced at exhibit-44.
Jayantilal had called me at the time of Will which is of
movable and immoveable properties. At the time of the
execution of this, Will, Jayantibhai was conscious and well
D
position. He executed this Will by his wish, not under the
pressure of-any."
In cross-examination, he stated:
"I do Government service in Gondal. I do my service in
E Agriculture department. I am at Gondal for the last 4 years.
On 9.5.1996, I was at Gondal. It is not true that my
signature is obtained in Gondal. When I went to Jetpur, I
have signed in the Will at Jetpur. On that day I went Jetpur
after putting my report for leave. I was called at Jetpur. First
I was informed therefore I went prior to the week of the
F
execution of Will. I was informed. I directly went to •
Jayantibhai. It is true that this original Will was already
prepared in that Will I signed. Jayantibhai had also signed
in my presence·, when I signed. At that time we two and
one old man was there to whom I know by face. Rest I do
G not know."
11. The Will was in Gujarati. It was typed one. Who scribed
the Will is not known. Who typed the same is also not known. ,.
Signature of Ranjit Singh is at Serial No.2 ·of the column of the I

witn~sses. Paragraph 8 of the Will makes an interesting
·- ~-·-··
H
LALITABEN JAYANTILAL POPAT v. PRAGNABEN 1509
JAMNADAS KATARIA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

reading which is reproduced hereinbelow : A
_......,
"At Jetpur my trusted Vaisnav friend Mavaji Virjabhai whose
support I have received in my religious life, I have trusted
upon him. Therefore, his signature as witness is done and
he has to see that my heirs may receive my property
according to Will." B
This Will or 'vasihat nama' is my last Will and I have not
executed any Will or 'vasihat nama' except this. If it is, it is ·
to be considered as cancelled. In this way if my life may
" complete, this Will be considered the last Will.
I
I have executed this Will or vasihat nama with my pleasure, c
keeping the life permanent, good health, after realize and
thinking, according to the voice of my soul and I have
signed before two witnesses. For that I have signed under
this and both witnesses have put their own signature."
.I
12. A perusal of the Will shows that the said Mavajibhai D
Virajibhai was made an executor of the Will. The Will, however,
has been produced from the custody of Ranjit Singh. How he
~ -f came in custody of Will has not been explained. The recital that
no other Will had been executed appears to have been made
as if the executor was not sure thereabout. The Will is E
supposed to have been executed in presence of both the
witnesses. A declaration is made by the testator that he had i
signed before both the witnesses and only before him both the,
witnesses had put their signatures.
Ranjit Singh does not say so. He was alone with the F
. \ testator. According to him, the testator had already put his
signature. Jayantilal, the testator of the said Will had signed in
his presence. It is, thus, evident that at that point of time
Mavajibhai Virajibhai had not put his signature on the Will as
an attesting witness. Still his name appears at Serial No.1. An
G
old man only according to the said witness was present when
the testator executed the Will. Who was that old man is not
known. Certainly he is not Mavajibhai Virajibhai.
"'\
It has, therefore, not been proved that both the attesting
witnesses either attested the Will in presence of each other or
H
1510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A the testator had acknowledged his signature in presence of the
other witnesses.
13. The learned counsel, however, has drawn our attention ,..
to the statement made in the counter affidavit that the said
Mavajibhai Virajibhai had expired on 2.5.1996. It was, however,
B very fairly stated that the said fact had not been brought on
record before the courts below. We, therefore, are not in a
position to accept the said contention raised before us for the
first time.
14. Mr. Priyadarshi has drawn our attention to a decision •
c of this Court in Joyce Primrose Prestor (Mrs) (Nee Vas) v. Vera \
Marie Vas (Ms) & Ors. ((1996) 9 SCC 324]. In that case, the
Will was a 'Holograph Will'. The writings _of the testatrix was
proved.
~ The question which arose for consideration therein before
\.
o· this Court was as to whether the Will was surrounded by
suspicious circumstances.
This Court noticed a passage from the 'Laws of Will in India
and Pakistan, by Mantha Ramamurthi, at pages 81-82, which \-¥""
reads as under :
E "If a will appears on the face of it to have been duly
executed and attested in accordance with the
requirements of the Act, the maxim "omni a proe sumuntur
rite esse acta," applies, unless it is clearly proved by the
attesting witnesses that the Will is not in fact duly executed.
F The Court of Probate has long been accustomed to give
great weight to the presumption of due execution arising
~ _,_
from the regularity ex facie of the testamentary paper
produced where no suspicion of fraud has occurred.
The maxim "omni a Pree sumuntur rite esse acta" is an
G expression :n a short form, of a reasonable probability, and
of the propriety in point of law on acting on such probability. :..
The maxim expresses an inference which may reasonably
be drawn when an intention to do some formal act is .~

established. In Blake v. Knight Sir Herbert Jenner Fusty
l
observed Is it absolutely necessary to have positive
H .,,..
LAL!TABEN JAYANTILAL POPAT v. PRAGNABEN 1511
JAMNADAS KATARIA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

affirmative testimony by the subscribed witnesses that the A
Will was actually signed in their presence, or actually
<_ ~ acknowledged in their presence? Is it absolutely
necessary, under all circumstances that the witnesses
should concur in stating that these acts took place? Or is
it absolutely necessary, where the witnesses will not swear B:
positively, that the Court should pronounce against the
--1 validity of the will. I think these are not absolute requisites
to the validity of the will.
.. Consequently, "where the evidence of attesting witnesses
~ is vague or doubtful or even conflicting the Court may take c
into consideration the circumstances of the case and judge
from them collectively whether the requirements of the
Statute were complied with; in other words the Court may,
on consideration of other evidence or of the whole
circumstances of the case, come to the conclusion that
their recollection is at fault, that their evidence is of a
D
suspicious character, or that they were willfully misleading
the Court, and accordingly disregard their testimony and
.'t -I pronounce in favour of the will."
I (Emphasis supplied)
E
This Court held that a greater degree of presumption
arises in the case of 'holograph Wills' The said finding was
~
arrived at as the writing of the Wil! and signature of the testator
were admitted; there was also due an.d proper attestation in
accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. This Court
- held that no suspicious circumstances appeared on the face F
I~ of the instrument and it was found to be moderate and rational.
Whether a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances
or not is essentially a question of fact.
We have noticed hereinbefore that there was a large G
/"
number of suspicious circumstances in the instant case. We

.. ~

\
'
have also pointed out that suspicious circumstances appear on
the face of the Will.
Inferences of suspicious circumstances must be drawn
having regard to the evidence of Ranjit Singh. H
1512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Even the statutory requirements for proof of the Will have
not been complied with. It is a trite law that execution of a Will
must be held to have been proved not only when the statutory
requirements for proving the Will are satisfied but the Will is
,, -~~

also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances.
8 When such evidences are brought on record, the Court may
take aid of the presumptive evidences also.
15. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Priyadarshi on
a decision of this Court in Ramabai Padmakar Patil (Dead)
through LRs. & Ors. v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande & Ors. •
c ((2003) 8 SCC 537]. In that case itself, this Court held : ~

"Before we advert to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, it will be useful to briefly notice the
legal position regarding acceptance and proof of a Will. ~
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act deals with
D execution of unprivileged Wills. It lays down that 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. It further lays down that the Will shall be attested
).-.~.
by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the
testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will or has seen \
E
some other person sign the Will, in the presence and on
the direction of the testator and each of the witnesses shall
sign the Will in the presence of the testator. Section 68 of
the Evidence Act mandates examination of one attesting ..
I

\
·r
witness in proof of a Will, whether registered or not." •
VL
F It was furthermore held :
.J -~
::s~
.
"In P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan
Nambiar it has been held that it is the duty of the ,,.
~
propounder of the Will to remove all the suspected
features, but there must be real, germane and valid
G
suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind." ,
-,
The said decision, therefore, is of no assistance to us.
· 16. The question which, thus, arises for consideration is f
as to whether execution of the Will has been proved. In our '

H opinion, it has not been. -,
LALITABEN JAYANTILAL POPAT v. PRAGNABEN 1513
JAMNADAS KATARIA & ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]

The requirements for proving a Will have been laid down A
in a large number of decisions. We would, however, refer to only
a few of them.
,.~
In Janki Narayan Bhoir (supra), while dealing with the
question elaborately, this Court held :
"8. To say will has been duly executed the requirement B
mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 63 of the
Succession Act are to be complied with i.e., (a) the testator
has to sign or affix his mark to the will, or it has got to be
.. signed by some other person in his presence and by his

I
direction; (b) that the signature or mark of the test~tor, or c
the signature of the person signing at his direction,; has to
appear at a place form which it could appear that by that
mark or signature the document is intended to have effect
as a will; (c) the most important point with which we are
presently concerned in this appeal, is that the will has to
D
be attested by two or more witnesses and each of these
witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his
mark to the Will, or must have seen some other person
sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the
~1
testator, or must have received from the testator a
personal acknowledgement of signature or mark, or of the E
signature of such other person, and each of the witnesses
has to sign the Will in the presence of the testator.
9. It is thus clear that one of the requirements of due
execution of will is its attestation by two or more witnesses
which is mandatory. F
. ~ 10. Section 68 of the Evidence Act speaks of as to now a
document required by law to be attested can be proved.
According to the said Section, a document required by law
to be attested shall not be used as evidence until one
attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose G!
of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness

,
...
alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable
of giving an evidence. It flows from this Section that if there
be an attesting witness alive capable of giving evidence
H
1514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A and subject to the process of the Court, has to be
necessarily examined before the document required by
law to be attested can be used in an· evidence. On a ~
combined reading of Section 63 of the Succession Act
with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it appears that a
person propounding the will has got to prove that the will
B
was duly and validly executed. That car.not be done by
simply proving that the signatur~ on the will was that of the
testator but must also prove that attestations were also
made properly as required by Clause (c) of Section 63 of •
the Succession Act. It is true that Section 68 of Evidence
c Act does not say that both or all the attesting witnesses . \
must be examined. But at least one attesting witness has
to be called for proving due execution of the Will as
envisaged in Section 63. Although Section 63 of the
Succession Act requires that a will has to be attested at
D least by two witnesses, Section 68 of the Evidence Act
provides that a document, which is required by law to be
attested, shall not be used as evidence until one attesting
witness at least has been examined for the purpose of ~ ,..~.

proving its due execution if such witness is alive and
E capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of
the Court. In a way, Section 68 gives a concession to those
who want to prove and establish a will in a Court of law by.
examining at least one attesting witness even though will
has to be attested at least by two witnesses mandatorily
under Section 63 of the Succession Act. But what is
.F
significant and to be noted is that that one attesting
witness examined should be in a position to prove the ..( _,,
execution of a will. to put in other words, if one attesting
witness can prove execution of the will in terms of Clause
(c) of Section 63. viz., attestation by two attesting witnesses
G in the manne( contemplated_ therein, the examination of
other attesting witness can be dispensed with. The one
.
,...__

attesting witness examined, in his e.vidence has to $atisfy
,..
the attestation of a will by him and the other attesting f
Witness in order to prove there was due execution of.the
H will. If the attesting witness examined besides his
'
LALITABEN JAYANTILAL POPAT v. PRAGNABEN 1515
JAMNADAS KATARIA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

attestation does not, in his evidence, satisfy the A
requirements of atten~i<;m of the will by other witness also
~ it falls short of attestation of will at least by two witnesses
for the simple reason that the execution of the will does
not merely mean the signing of it by the testator but it
means fulfilling and proof of all the formalities required B
under Section 63 ol the Succession Act. Where one
attesting witness examined to prove the will under Section
68 of the Evidence Act fails to prove the due execution of
... the will then the other available attesting witness has to be
called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in
I
all respects. Where one attesting witness is examined and
c
he fails to prove the attestation of the will by the other
witness there will be deficiency in meeting the mandatory
requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
D
Following the said decision, as also the other decisions
in Benga Behera (Supra), this Court held:
"21. It was also not necessary for the appellants to confront
~~
him with his signature in the Xeroxed copy of the Will,
inasmuch as the same had not appeared in the certified E
copy. Execution of a Will must conform to the requirement
of Section 63 of the Succession Act, in terms whereof a
Will must be attested by two/or more witnesses. Execution
of a Will, therefore, can only be proved in terms of clause
(c) of Section 63 when at least one of the two witnesses
proves the attestation. A Will is required to be attested by F
... ) two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the
testator sign or affix his mark to the Will. Section 68 of the
Evidence Act provides for the requirements for proof of
execution of the Will. In terms of said provision, at least
one attesting witness has to be examined to prove G
execution of a Will."
Yet again, recently in Anil Kak v. Kumari Sharada Raje &
---, Ors. [(2008) 6 SCALE 597], it was opined :
"40. Whereas execution of any other document can be
proved by proving the writings of the document or the H

'
•
1516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 17 S.C.R.

A contents of it as also the execution thereof, in the event
there exists suspicious circumstances the party seeking
to obtain probate and/ or letters of administration with a Y'
copy of the Will annexed must also adduce evidence to
the satisfaction of the court before it can be accepted as
B genuine.
41. As an order granting probate is a judgment in rem, the
court must also satisfy its conscience before it passes an
order.
~
It may be true that deprivation of a due share by the natural
c heir by itself may not be held to be a suspicious ;,,_

circumstance but it is one of the factors which is taken into
consideration by the courts before granting probate of a
'
Will. '
Unlike other documents, even animus attestandi is a
D necessary ingredient for proving the attestation."
In Babu Singh & Ors. v. Ram Sahai@ Ram Singh [2008
(7) SCALE 743], this Court, inter alia, referring to Apoline
D'Souza v. John D'Souza [(2007) 7 SCC 225] and B. .,_ ,...-
Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors. [(2006) 13
E sec 249] held that the question as to whether due attestation
has been established or not will depend upon the fact situation
in each case.
17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The
F appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of
this case, there shall be no order as to costs. ~ +•
R.P. Appeal allowed. ~

(