In a significant ruling on November 20, 2023, the Supreme Court has redefined the criteria for establishing the authenticity and execution of wills. The apex court, comprised of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, clarified that a mere assertion from a random witness claiming to have seen the attesting witness sign the will does not suffice to prove its genuineness.
The court delved into Section 69 of the Evidence Act, which addresses situations where attesting witnesses are unavailable. This provision necessitates the proof that at least one attesting witness’s handwriting matches, and the signature of the document’s executor corresponds to that person’s handwriting. Justices Ravikumar and Kumar underscored the importance of examining a witness intimately familiar with the attesting witness’s signature, stating:
“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 depose that he saw the attesting witness sign the Will.”
This landmark decision arose from a case involving a 70-year-old woman, Venkubayamma, who allegedly adopted a child less than a year old and passed away two months later. The adoptee, Nalini Kanth, asserted that Venkubayamma had bequeathed all her properties to him through a registered will.
The court highlighted that the will in question failed to meet legal standards. It noted that the mere registration of a will does not guarantee its validity, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to Section 68 by presenting attesting witnesses before the trial court. In the absence of such witnesses, the court found the application of Section 69 unconvincing, rendering the will legally inconsequential.
The court further observed suspicious circumstances surrounding the will, including the disinheritance of Venkubayamma’s own grandson, Kaliprasad. The expectation that a less than one-year-old child would perform her funeral rites was deemed unrealistic, contributing to the overall lack of credibility.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed Nalini Kanth’s appeal, emphasizing that both the adoption and the will were not proven in accordance with the law, thereby negating any claim to Venkubayamma’s properties. The ruling establishes a stringent precedent for validating wills, stressing the need for thorough adherence to legal procedures and evidence.
