A registered Will must still be proved by examining an attesting witness.

The plaintiffs and defendants 1–8, 10 and 11 were the children of V.K. Kesavaram. The dispute concerned several properties claimed to be available for partition.

The trial court held that only items 1 and 2 were partible and allotted each of the eleven children a 1/11 share; it rejected the claim to the other items.

In appeal, the plaintiffs no longer pressed their claim that the properties were joint-family properties or their claim for marriage expenses. They sought partition of items 1, 2, 4 and 5, accepting that certain other items were duplicates, had been sold, or were not claimed.

Item 4 had been purchased by the first defendant, settled by him on his mother, and was claimed by defendants 2–8 under a registered Will allegedly executed by the mother.

Item 5 was the exclusive property of the unmarried fourth defendant, who died during the appeal. The other defendants had not appealed or filed cross-objections against the trial court’s decree concerning items 1 and 2.

1. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a 1/10 share in items 1, 2, 4 and 5

2. Whether the alleged Will dated 16 August 1985 in favour of defendants 2–8 was proved in accordance with law

3. Whether the trial court’s judgment and preliminary decree required modification

Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, an unprivileged Will must be executed and attested in the prescribed manner; under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, at least one attesting witness must be called to prove a Will when such a witness is available.

Registration of a Will does not, by itself, establish its validity or dispense with those proof requirements; the Court relied on Prem Singh v. Birbal for the general presumption attaching to registered documents, while distinguishing the specific proof required for a Will, and on Leela & Others v. Murugananthan & Others, 2025 INSC 10, concerning proof under Sections 63 and 68.

Under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, the fourth defendant’s siblings inherited her property after her death unmarried and without her parents surviving her.

The Will was not proved: the defendants produced only a certified copy and examined neither an attesting witness nor the scribe. The Court therefore set aside the trial court’s finding that defendants 2–8 took item 4 under the Will and held that item available for partition.

Item 5 belonged exclusively to the fourth defendant; following her death as a spinster, her siblings on record were entitled to inherit it under Section 15.

Because no appeal or cross-objection challenged the trial court’s decision on items 1 and 2, that finding stood. The fourth defendant’s death enlarged the shares in items 1, 2 and 4, as well as determining succession to item 5; the Court found no reason to defer that adjustment to final-decree proceedings.

No costs were awarded, and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed.