LexNAGULAPATI LAKSHMAMMA versus MUPPARAJU SUBBAIAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NAGULAPATI LAKSHMAMMA A v. MUPPARAJU SUBBAIAH APRIL 15, 1998 [G.N. RAY AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] B Secession Act, 1925 : Section 63. Will-Attestation-Validity of-Attesting witness-Held: Must either sign or ajfrx his thump impression or mark himself-Attesting witness cannot C direct some other person to sign or make a mark or write his name on his behalf-Such a delegation does not amount to valid attes1ation of Will- General Clauses Act, 1897, S.3(56)-Evidence Act, 1872, S. 68. Interpretation of Statutes : External aids-Dictionary meaning-Invoking of-Held: When there is an express statutory provisior. in regard to a matter dictionary meaning cannot be invoked. Words and Phrases : ''Signed'' and ''Signature' '-Meaning of-In the context of S. 63 of the Succession Act, 1925. The appellant's father executed a Will bequeathing his properties D E in a particular manner. The Will was purported to have been attested by five persons. Two of them had signed. The other three had not affixed their thump F impressions or made any mark. They had been described as 'Nishanis'. It was also written in the Will against their names "L TI mark ... of ... " though there is no thump impression or mark actually. Out of the two attestors who had signed, one was dead and the other was not examined, though admittedly alive. One of the three persons described as "Nishanis" was examined as G DW-2. Admittedly, he had net affixed his thump impression or made any mark on the Will. While the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge ~ ""'- treated him as an attesting witnf'ss and believing him held the Will to be proved, the High Court held that he was not an attestor in the eyes of law and his evidence could not prove the Will. On this reasoning the High Court set aside the judgments and d~crees passed by the courts below. Hence this H 723 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R. A appeal On behalf of the appellant it was contended that an attestor could direct :.-- some other person to sign or make a mark on his behalf and, therefore, it should be deemed that ''L TI of ... '' meant that DW-2 had signed in the Will as an attestor. B Dismissing the appeal, this Court ~ t HELD : 1.1. Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1872 makes a vital distinction between t:.e testator and the attestors in the matter of signing the c Will. The testator may sign or affix his mark himself or direct some other person to sign in his presence. But in the case of attestors such an enabling provision is absent. Thi! Section expressly states that each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator. The privilege or power of delegation is not available to the attesting witnesses under the Section. When the same Section makes a distinction expressly between a testator and D an attestor it L not possible to accept to contention that an attestor can also direct some other person to sign or make a mark on his behalf. If a witness to execution of the Will chooses to do so, he is not an attesting witness as there is no attestation by him as contemplated by Section 63(c) of the Succession Act. Consequently, he will not be an attesting witness for the purpose of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. [728-B-E) E 1.2. It is not possible to accept the argument that the word 'sign' occurring in the last part of Section 63(c) would mean "sign his name or affix his mark himself or get it signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction." When there is an express statutory provision in this F regard, the definition contained in the Judicial Dictionary cannot be invoked by the appellant. It must, therefore, be held that for the purpose of valid ... attestation under Section 63 of the Succession Act it is absolutely necessary - that the attesting witness shou!d either sign or affix his thumb impression or mark himself as the Section does not permit an attesting witness to delegate that function to another. (728-F-G; 729-F; 733-A-B) G C!Tv. Keshab Chandra Manda/, AIR (1950) SC 265, followed. D. Fernandez v. R. Alves, ILR 3 Born 382; Nitye Gopal Sircar v. +- .. Nagendra Nath Mitter Mozumdar, ILR 11 Cal; Venkataramayya v. Nagamma, AIR (1932) Mad 272; Rajani Manda/ v. Digindra Mohan Biswas, AIR (1932) H Cal 440; Annu Bhujanga Chigarae v. Rama Bhujanga Chigare, AIR (1937) ~·· NAGl'LAPATI L..\KSHM.\~IMA v. ~tl<PPAR.\JU SUBBAIAH ISRJNIVASAN, lj 725 Born 389; Dahu v . .Jamadar Rai A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.