If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead, Will Can Be Proved By Establishing That Signatures Of Executant & Witness Are In Their Handwritings
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom held that if the propounder succeeds in proving that the testifying witnesses are lifeless, the Will will be proved by establishing that the signatures of the executant and witness are of their handwritings.
The Courtroom held thus in an Enchantment most popular towards the Judgment of the Trial Courtroom which decreed a Partition Go well with partly, excluding the residential plot.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar noticed, “… when no testifying witness will be discovered, it have to be proved that the attestation by at the very least one testifying witness is in his handwriting and that the signature of the individual executing the doc is in that individual’s handwriting. Studying Sections 68 and 69 of the Proof Act collectively, it’s clear that if the propounder succeeds in proving that the testifying witnesses are lifeless, the Will will be proved by establishing that the signature of the executant and the attestation by at the very least one witness are of their respective handwritings.”
The Bench mentioned {that a} witness cited to show a Will beneath Part 69 of the Indian Proof Act, 1872 (IEA) needn’t essentially be an individual who had seen the executant and testifying witnesses affixing their signatures and it’s enough to show that the signatures have been within the handwriting of the respective individuals.
Senior Advocate R. Lakshmi Narayan appeared on behalf of the Appellant whereas Advocates Ok.C. Eldo and Nirmal S. appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Transient Info
The Appellant/Plaintiff filed a Go well with for partition of two gadgets of properties towards her brother and the kids of deceased siblings. The primary Defendant i.e., the Plaintiff’s eldest brother, contested the Go well with, claiming that one of many properties belonged to him beneath a Will executed by their mom. On the time of her demise, their mom had left behind a complete extent of 171.25 cents of wetland. Accepting the mentioned Defendant’s contentions, the Trial Courtroom decreed the Go well with partly, excluding the mentioned residential plot. Difficult this, the Plaintiff was earlier than the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning
The Excessive Courtroom in view of the above details, famous, “It’s settled legislation that the function of the court docket, whereas contemplating the query whether or not there are suspicious circumstances associated to the execution of the Will, is to determine whether or not the proof on document satisfies its conscience to see that the instrument propounded because the final Will of the deceased is a product of a free and sound disposing thoughts of the testator. A Will is usually executed to change the mode of succession.”
The Courtroom was of the view that the primary Defendant has efficiently proved the due execution and registration of the Will.
“The proof on document, together with the circumstances arising therefrom, compels us to conclude that Ext. B2 Will is real, and that it was duly executed by the late Bhavani. The trial court docket has extensively handled all the proof on document. We’ve got re appreciated the proof and discover no materials to vary from the conclusions arrived at by the trial court docket. There isn’t any motive to intrude with the impugned judgment”, it added.
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom dismissed the Enchantment and affirmed the impugned Judgment.
Trigger Title- Dr. Ok.R. Leena Devi v. Ok.R. Rajaram & Ors. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:KER:36448)
Look:
Appellant: Senior Advocate R. Lakshmi Narayan and Advocate R. Ranjanie.
Respondents: Advocates Ok.C. Eldo, Nirmal S., Veena Hari, S. Bijilal, Almajitha Fathima, and Hima Joseph.
