[Suspicion Removal – Judicial Conscience] Courts must be fully satisfied that Will was validly executed; mere assertions or registration cannot remove suspicion. (Paras 13–14, 17)

advocatemmmohan

APEX COURT 

[Execution of Will – Section 63(c) Succession Act] A Will must be attested by two or more witnesses, each witnessing the testator’s signature or acknowledgment; simultaneous presence is not mandatory. (Paras 12, 15)

[Proof of Will – Section 68 Evidence Act] At least one attesting witness must be examined to prove execution; proviso excluding this requirement for registered documents does not apply to Wills. (Paras 16–17)

[Section 71 Evidence Act – Strict Interpretation] Section 71 applies only when attesting witness denies or fails to recollect execution; it cannot be invoked when witness is not summoned or fails to prove execution. (Paras 17, 20–21)

[Suspicious Circumstances – Burden on Propounder] Where Will excludes natural heirs or contains unusual dispositions, propounder must dispel all legitimate suspicions to satisfy judicial conscience. (Paras 13–14)

[Registration of Will – Limited Presumption] Registration of Will may reduce suspicion but does not prove due execution; statutory proof requirements under Sections 63 and 68 remain mandatory. (Paras 9–10, 14, 18–19)

[Judicial Conscience Test] Courts must act as a court of conscience in Will cases, ensuring instrument is truly last testament of testator, executed with free will and sound mind. (Paras 13, 18, 28)

[Case Law Principles]

• H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma: Propounder must prove signature, sound mind, understanding, and free will. (Para 13)

• Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur: Suspicious circumstances require heavier burden on propounder. (Para 14)

• Surendra Pal v. Saraswati Arora: Proof must remove doubts of coercion or fraud. (Para 14)

• Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee: Registration reduces suspicion but does not replace proof. (Para 14)

• Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam: If one attesting witness fails, other must be examined. (Paras 18, 21)

• M.B. Ramesh v. Veeraje Urs: Court may call for further evidence to satisfy conscience despite technical lapses. (Paras 18–19)

[Effect of Non‑Examination of Attesting Witness] If attesting witness is alive and capable, failure to examine renders Will unproved; Section 71 cannot be invoked to bypass this requirement. (Paras 20–21)

[Suspicion Removal – Judicial Conscience] Courts must be fully satisfied that Will was validly executed; mere assertions or registration cannot remove suspicion. (Paras 13–14, 17)