Will - Testimony of attesting witnesses - Leading questions in cross-examination permissible and responses have probative value.

Supreme Court Upholds Exclusion of Heir in Will, Overturns Lower Court Rulings Apex Court Validates Will Execution and Attestation, Dismisses Partition Suit

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of K.S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph, overturned the concurrent findings of lower courts that had disbelieved a will excluding one of the testator's nine children. The judgment, delivered by Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for proving a will's execution and attestation under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Evidence Act, 1872.

The case revolved around a will executed by N.S. Sreedharan in 1988, which was registered the following day. The will excluded one daughter, the plaintiff, who had married outside the community, while bequeathing the estate to the other eight children. The plaintiff challenged the will in a suit filed in 2011, seeking partition of the father's properties.

The trial court and the High Court had earlier decreed in favor of the plaintiff, doubting the credibility of the attesting witness, DW-2, who was cross-examined about the signatures on the will. The courts found inconsistencies in DW-2's testimony, particularly concerning the presence of the Sub-Registrar and the attestation process.

The Supreme Court, however, found that DW-2's testimony, despite minor discrepancies, satisfied the legal requirements for will attestation. The Court noted that the responses elicited during cross-examination held probative value and that the testator's sound disposing mind was established. The ruling underscores that leading questions in cross-examination, if answered affirmatively, can substantiate the attestation process.

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, asserting that the exclusion of one heir was justified by the testator's intentions. It highlighted the rule of prudence, which requires judicial satisfaction of the reasons for excluding a legal heir. The decision affirms the principle that a testator's desires, as expressed in a validly executed will, should not be overridden by subjective interpretations of fairness or equity.

The judgment sets a precedent by clarifying the evidentiary standards for proving a will and reinforces the notion that the testator's wishes, once legally validated, take precedence over claims of equity by excluded heirs.

Bottom Line:

Will - Proof of execution and attestation - Requirements under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Testimony of attesting witnesses must prove the execution and attestation of the will - Leading questions in cross-examination permissible and responses have probative value.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 63(c), Evidence Act, 1872 Section 68, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 11

K.S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2822938