Attestation of Wills: A Matter of Substance Over Form


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Gopal Krishan v. Daulat Ram

Citation: 2025 INSC 18. [PDF]

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's ruling in Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors. addresses a critical aspect of will execution under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, specifically the interpretation of "by the direction of the testator" in the context of will attestation. The case clarifies the requirements for valid attestation and emphasizes a practical approach, prioritizing the substance of the attestation over strict adherence to technicalities.

The central legal question was whether the phrase "by the direction of the testator" in Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act requires a strict or liberal interpretation. This was particularly relevant as the testator had affixed his thumb impression (mark) on the will, and the High Court had deemed the will invalid because an attesting witness did not explicitly state that the thumb impression was made at the testator’s direction. The Supreme Court's judgment provides clarity on this issue.

The ruling underscores that the primary goal of the attestation process is to ensure the testator's intentions are accurately recorded and verified. This involves ensuring that the attesting witness has either seen the testator sign or affix their mark, has seen someone else sign in the testator’s presence and by their direction, or has received personal acknowledgment of the same by the testator. The court emphasizes that a literal interpretation of the law is to be followed, unless the same leads to ambiguity, uncertainty or absurdity.

Case Summary

  1. The case involved a dispute over a will allegedly executed by Sanjhi Ram, who bequeathed his property to his nephew, Gopal Krishan. Sanjhi Ram had no children and resided with Gopal Krishan.
  2. Sanjhi Ram executed the will on November 7, 2005, and passed away the next day. The will was attested by Janak Raj and Tarsem Lal.
  3. The respondents, relatives of Sanjhi Ram, challenged the validity of the will, alleging it was forged. They claimed ownership of the property and argued that the mutation based on the will was illegal.
  4. The Civil Court declared the will "illegal," "null," and "void" due to suspicions regarding its execution, the testator’s health, and inconsistencies in line spacing on the document.
  5. The Lower Appellate Court overturned the Civil Court's decision, finding the will valid, noting that the spacing of lines was not unusual and that the testator's illness was not an issue.
  6. The High Court reversed the Lower Appellate Court, upholding the Civil Court’s decision, stating that the attesting witness, Janak Raj, did not state in his testimony that the testator had affixed his thumb impression on the direction of the testator.
  7. The Supreme Court, in its final judgment, overturned the High Court's decision. The Court ruled that the High Court had incorrectly interpreted Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, declaring the will valid.

Study guide

  1. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: The judgment meticulously explains the requirements of Section 63 of the Act, which governs the execution of a will. It breaks down Section 63(c), specifically focusing on attestation by witnesses.
  2. Five Situations for Attestation: The court identifies five distinct situations under Section 63(c) for valid attestation:
    • The testator has signed or affixed their mark.
    • The attesting witness has seen the testator sign or affix their mark.
    • The attesting witness has seen someone else sign the will in the presence and by the direction of the testator.
    • The attesting witness has received a personal acknowledgement from the testator that the testator has signed or affixed their mark.
    • Each attesting witness has signed the will in the presence of the testator.
  3. Interpretation of "by the direction of the testator": The Supreme Court clarified that the phrase "by the direction of the testator" is relevant only when the attesting witness has seen some other person sign the will on behalf of the testator. This direction is not required when the testator has signed or affixed their mark themselves, provided that the attesting witness saw the testator do so.
  4. Disjunctive nature of "or": The court emphasized the use of the word “or” in Section 63(c). The use of ‘or’ indicates that the listed conditions are alternative options and not cumulative. It should not be read as ‘and’ unless there is a discernible legislative intent. The court said that a literal interpretation should be adopted unless this produces ambiguity, absurdity or uncertainty.
  5. Testimony of Attesting Witness: The court highlighted the testimony of Janak Raj (DW-1), the attesting witness, who stated that he saw Sanjhi Ram affix his thumb impression to the will. The court held that this testimony was sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 63(c), without needing an explicit statement that it was done under the testator's direction.
  6. Principles for Proving a Will: The Court reiterated the established principles for proving a will, referencing Meena Pradhan and others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another:
    • The will must be proven to the satisfaction of a prudent mind.
    • The will must fulfill all the formalities of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.
    • At least one attesting witness must be examined to prove the will’s execution.
    • If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder of the will has the responsibility to address them.
  7. Suspicious circumstances: Suspicious circumstances that can invalidate a will include a feeble mind, a shaky signature, an unfair disposition of property, and the person who is a beneficiary taking a leading part in the will's creation.

Rationale

  1. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's strict interpretation of the phrase "by the direction of the testator". The High Court erred by reading the word "or" as "and" in Section 63(c).
  2. The court clarified that the "direction of the testator" is only required when the attesting witness has seen another person sign the will on behalf of the testator. It is not necessary when the testator has directly signed or affixed their mark.
  3. The Supreme Court found that the testimony of DW-1 was sufficient to prove that the witness saw the testator affix his mark on the will. The court stated that once the attesting witness has stated he saw the testator’s thumb print being affixed, there is no need for the attesting witness to explicitly state that it was done on the direction of the testator.
  4. The court emphasized that the primary objective of the law is to ensure that the testator’s intentions are properly recorded and attested. It should not invalidate a will based on technicalities if the spirit of the law is met.
  5. The Supreme Court emphasized that a practical and purposive approach is necessary when interpreting legal provisions, focusing on the intent of the law rather than on strict adherence to technicalities.
  6. The Supreme Court held that if an attesting witness has seen the testator affix their mark or sign the will, this is sufficient compliance with Section 63(c), and it is not essential for the witness to explicitly state that it was done “on the direction of the testator”.

FAQ

Q.1. What was the main issue in the Supreme Court case Gopal Krishan v. Daulat Ram?

Answer: The core issue was the interpretation of the phrase "by the direction of the testator" in Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and whether the High Court correctly invalidated the will based on the lack of such explicit direction in the attesting witness's testimony.

Q.2. What does Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, require for will attestation?

Answer: Section 63(c) requires that a will must be attested by two or more witnesses, who must each have seen the testator sign or affix their mark, or have seen another person sign the will at the testator’s direction, or have received personal acknowledgment of the testator's signature or mark. Each witness must also sign the will in the presence of the testator.

Q.3. How did the High Court interpret the attestation requirement in this case?

Answer: The High Court interpreted Section 63(c) strictly, ruling that the attesting witness must explicitly state that the testator affixed his thumb impression under the testator's direction. The High Court also considered the reduced spacing between lines in the last part of the will as a suspicious circumstance.

Q.4. What was the Supreme Court's interpretation of the phrase "by the direction of the testator"?

Answer: The Supreme Court clarified that the phrase "by the direction of the testator" only applies when a witness has seen another person sign the will on behalf of the testator. It does not apply when the testator has signed or affixed their mark personally. In that case, the witness simply has to have seen the testator sign/affix their mark.

Q.5. Why did the Supreme Court overrule the High Court’s decision?

Answer: The Supreme Court overruled the High Court because the High Court misinterpreted Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, reading the word "or" as "and". The court held that if an attesting witness saw the testator affix their mark on the will, the requirement of attestation was met, and it was not necessary for the witness to state that it was done under the testator’s direction.

Q.6. What are some suspicious circumstances that can invalidate a will?

Answer: Suspicious circumstances include a feeble mind, a shaky signature, an unfair disposition of property, and the person who is a beneficiary taking a leading part in the will's creation.

Q.7. What was the final outcome of the case?

Answer: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and restored the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. This means that the will of Sanjhi Ram was deemed valid, as were the subsequent sale deeds.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Gopal Krishan v. Daulat Ram provides significant clarification on the attestation requirements for wills under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court's emphasis on a practical, purposive approach ensures that the substance of attestation is prioritized over mere technicalities. This ruling reinforces the importance of ensuring that a will represents the genuine intent of the testator and will serve as a guiding precedent for lower courts when interpreting Section 63(c) of the Act in future will disputes.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Trademark Victory for "STREAX": Court Protects Established Brand Against Infringement

A critical analysis of the trademark infringement case, Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited v. Chandan and Shah Trading LLP , 2025:BHC-OS:3609 , reveals key aspects of trademark law and judicial reasoning. The case revolved around the plaintiff's ("Hygienic Research Institute") registered trademark "STREAX" and the defendant's ("Chandan and Shah Trading LLP") use of the mark "STREAK Street". Key points of analysis : Trademark and Goodwill: The plaintiff asserted proprietary rights in its registered trademark "STREAX," emphasizing its extensive use since 2002 and 44 registrations for "STREAX" and its variants. Significant sales turnover, with ₹501 Crores in 2023-24, and advertising expenses of ₹50 Crores, demonstrated the brand's market presence. Infringement and Passing Off: The plaintiff contended that the defendant's mark, "STREAK Street," was deceptively similar to the registered tradem...
Read more