Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

Moturu Nalini Kanth vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, through LRs.) (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 1004) - (Supreme Court) (20 Nov 2023)

To testify execution of Will, it is not enough to examine a random witness who asserts that he saw attesting witness affix his signature on Will

MANU/SC/1240/2023

Family

The present appeal is filed to determine the validity of a Will. The appellant claims to have been adopted by late Venkubayamma under registered Will Deed and that he has absolute right and title over the properties of late Venkubayamma. Respondent, grandson of late Venkubayamma, challenged the Will and adoption deed. The Trial Court held in the favour of Appellant but the High Court reversed that decision. Hence, the present appeal.

The Court observed that it is trite to state that mere registration of a Will does not attach to it a stamp of validity and it must still be proved in terms of Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The contention that Section 69 of the Evidence Act does not require actual proof of the handwriting of at least one attesting witness and proof of the signature of the executant being in that person’s handwriting cannot be accepted. Reference was made to precedents and latest judgments.

It was stated that for the purposes of Section 69 of the Evidence Act, it is not enough to merely examine a random witness who asserts that he saw the attesting witness affix his signature in the Will. The very purpose and objective of insisting upon examination of at least one attesting witness to the Will would be entirely lost if such requirement is whittled down to just having a stray witness deposes that he saw the attesting witness sign the Will. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : ADOPTION   WILL   PROPERTY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved