This case has been analysed via IRAC method

Civil Appeal No. 3351 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17115/2010)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol

 Issues:

• Whether there are sufficient grounds that warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the fact, upholding the validity of a Will?
• Whether the Will has been duly executed and substantiated legally?

Rule:

 Section 63 in  the Indian Succession Act 1925

• Under the Indian law system there are a few criterions to execute the validity of the will which include A person (except soldiers, airmen in conflict, and mariners at sea) must execute a will as follows;
• The importance of the signature,The testator must sign or mark the will, or another person may do so in their presence and under their instructions.
• The signature/mark must indicate that the testator intended to use the document as a will.
• Requirement of attesting, At least two witnesses must certify to the will.The will must be signed by the testator, someone on their behalf, or acknowledged in person.

Each witness must sign in front of the testator.Both witnesses do not have to be present at the same moment, and there is no exact phrasing necessary for attestation.

 Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act , 1872

• If a document is required to be attested by law, it cannot be introduced as evidence until at least one attesting witness is summoned to attest to its execution, assuming that the attesting witness is still alive, subject to the court’s procedure, and able to testify. With the caveat that, unless the execution by the person purported to have been executed is expressly denied, an attesting witness will not be required to prove the execution of any document, other than a will, registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908).

Judicial precedents

• such as Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (1959) The testator’s absence throughout the trial resulted in a stringent scrutiny of the Will.
• Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021)^[6] The decision established that the propounder must remove any uncertainties about the execution of a will.
• The other case that was referenced was Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam (2003)^[7],which confirmed that attesting witnesses must explain the testator’s presence and signature.

Analysis:

1)Whether  there is  sufficient evidence to overturn the concurrent decisions that upheld the validity of the Will?

The primary question is whether concurrent lower court judgments supporting the legality of Bahadur Pradhan’s Will justified intervention.The Supreme Court establishes the established rules of Will proof based on several precedents in the judgment. Two key issues of contention are whether the proponent of the Will must establish that the testator signed the Will freely, with a sound mind, and with understanding of its nature and effects. Even without specific charges of fraud or undue influence, if the circumstances surrounding the Will’s execution raise reasonable issues, the proponent has a higher responsibility to address these concerns with clear and persuasive replies. A previous case utilized as a reference to justify the aforementioned analysis is H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma. This is a major case that examines the type of evidence required for a Will, as well as the proponent’s role to eliminate ambiguous situations. The court emphasized that the court’s conscience must be satisfied that the testator was aware of and consented to the terms of the Will. The judgment of Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr goes on to elaborate on the statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which require proper attestation by at least two witnesses, one of whom must be examined in court if alive and capable of giving evidence.

This witness must attest not only to the testator’s signature, but also to their own and the other witness’ signatures while the testator is present. Further On being questioned on the validity of Bigamy The Court specifically rejected the accusations of a second marriage and bigamy, finding that they were unrelated to the core question of the Will’s validity as mentioned in the Judgement. This reflects the Court’s attention on the testamentary disposition itself, rather than the testator’s personal ties.

The Supreme Court found no compelling reasons to overturn the concurrent decisions of the lower courts. The attesting witness’ testimony met the statutory criteria for proving due execution, and the appellants failed to present any persuasive evidence to support their assertions of the testator’s unsound mind or suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will’s execution.

 Furthermore The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts had rightly noted the compliance with relevant legal provisions and had provided well-reasoned orders. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the Will and directing the disbursement of consequential benefits as mentioned in the Judgment of Meena Pradhan & ors. V. Kamla Pradhan & Anr, civil appeal no.3351 of 2014.

2) Whether the Will has been duly executed and substantiated legally?

The Court cited Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which describes the requirements for executing an unprivileged Will, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which controls the proof of papers needed by law to be witnessed as per mentioned in the Judgement. They underlined the need of strictly adhering to Section 63 regulations.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the examination of at least one attesting witness, who can show appropriate execution, is adequate under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.In the lack of proof of suspicious circumstances, fraud, or undue influence, the appellants (Meena Pradhan & Ors.) challenged the Will’s implementation. Based on this investigation, the Supreme Court concluded that the Will was correctly executed and legally supported. The attesting witness’ testimony met the statutory proof standards, and the appellants provided insufficient evidence to challenge its legitimacy on the grounds of mental capacity, suspicious circumstances, or undue influence. As a consequence, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ concurring findings and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Will’s legal validity. Relying on precedent cases, the case gained more clarity, as mentioned by the attesting witness in the Janki Narayan Bhoir case. The H. Venkatachala Iyengar further lays down the fundamental framework and overarching principles that guide the entire process of proving the validity of a Will, creating a foundational bedrock and reference that serves as precedent in such cases.

Conclusion:

The Case summarizes, the respondents are the prevailing party. The court upheld the legitimacy of Bahadur Pradhan’s will.This signifies that the Supreme Court concurred with the lower court’s conclusions. The Supreme Court found that the Will was correctly executed in compliance with legal requirements. There was sufficient proof from an attesting witness to support its execution. The appellants Meena Pradhan & Ors. failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims that the Will was defective due to suspicious circumstances, fraud, or undue influence.

The lower courts had previously conducted exhaustive investigations into the material and issued well-reasoned decisions, so the Supreme Court saw no reason to overturn them. The court found no legal basis to change lower courts’ findings of fact that had previously upheld the Will’s validity.

^[1] The Indian Succession Act, No. 39 of 1925, § 63, India Code (1925).

^[2] id.

^[3] The Indian Evidence Act, No. 1 of 1872, § 68, India Code (1872).

^[4] id.

^[5] H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 .

^[6] Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277 .

^[7] Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91.

^[8] Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, (2023) 9 SCC 734 .