LexJAGDISH CHAND SHARMA versus NARAIN SINGH SAINI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 397 JAGDISH CHAND SHARMA v. NARAIN SINGH SAINI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.4181-4182 Of 2015) MAY01, 2015 A B [KURIAN JOSEPH AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] SuccessionAct, 1925-s. 63(c)-EvidenceAct, 1872-ss. c 68, 71 - Will - Execution of - Correctness and validity - Execution of Will by testator as sole and absolute owner amongst others of the relevant property - Said property bequeathed in favo.ur of appellant out of love and affection for him for the services rendered by him and was not D favourably disposed towards his sons for their disagreeable conduct and activitie_§ - Trial court granted letter of administration to the appellant vis a vis the said Will holding that the Will had been validly executed by testator with a sound state of mind in presence of two attesting witnesses E - High Court set aside the order- Interference with- Held: Not called for- Evidence of attesting witnesses as a whole is clearly deficient vis-a-vis with the requirements of s. 63 (c) - Evidence of the said attesting witnesses and the Sub- Registrar does not exhibit either denial of the execution of F the Will or their failure to recollect the execution, as a result, s. 71 not attracted - Thus, evidence of the witnesses anlaysed collectively or in isolation, does not evince animo attestandi, an essential imperative of valid attestation of a G Will - Further; the materials on record do not present a backdrop, wherein the testator would have preferred appellant to be the legatee of his property - Bequest is exfacie unnatural, unfair and improbable - Suspicious circumstances attendant on the disposition do militatively H 397. 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 6 S.C.R. A impact upon the inalienable imperatives of solemnity and authenticity of any bequest to be effected by a testamentary instrument. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 AWill, as an instrument of testamentary disposition of property, being a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator's acquisitions during his lifetime, to be acted upon only on his/her demise, it c carries with it an overwhelming element of sanctity. As understandably, the testator/testatrix, as the case may be, at the time of testing of the document for its validity, would not be available, stringent requisites for the proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to rule out the o possibility of any manipulation. This is more so, as many a times, the manner of dispensation is in stark departure from the prescribed canons of devolution of property to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. The rigour of Section 63 (c) of the Succession Act, 1925 and E Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is thus, befitting the underlying exigency to secure against any self serving intervention contrary to the last wishes of the executor. [Para 45] [434-C-F] F 1.2 It is evident from the contents of Section 63 of the Act, that to execute the Will as contemplated therein, the testator would have to sign or affix his mark to it or the same has to be signed by some other person in his presence and on his direction. Further the G signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him, has to be so placed that it would appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as Will. The Section further mandates, that the Will shall have to be attested by two or more witnesses, H each of whom has seen the tP.stator sign or affix his JAGDISH CHAND SHARMA v. NARAIN SINGH SAINI 399 (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. mark to It or has seen some other persons sign it, in the A presence and on the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator, personal acknowledgement of a signature or mark, or the signature of such other persons and that each of the witnesses has signed the Will in the presence of the testator. It is, however B clarified, that it would not be necessary, that more than one witness be present at the same time and that no particular form of attestation would be necessary, It cannot be gainsaid, that the said legislatively prescribed essentials of a valid execution and attestation of a Will C under the Act are mandatory in nature, so much so, that any failure or deficiency in adherence thereto would be at the pain of invalidation of such document/instrument of disposition of property. [Para 14-15] [414-F-H;415-A- D C] 1.3 Section 68 o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.