A Will cannot be admitted in evidence without examining at least one attesting witness.

Har Kaur, mother of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4, owned the suit land and a tractor.

After her death, the plaintiff, defendants No.2 to 4, and the legal representatives of a predeceased daughter and grandson claimed succession to the property in their respective shares.

Defendant No.1, who was the second wife of defendant No.2, claimed exclusive ownership on the basis of a registered Will allegedly executed by Har Kaur on 08.07.1977 and obtained mutation No.6579/A in her favour.

The plaintiff challenged the mutation, sought declaration of her share, joint possession, and permanent injunction.

Defendant No.1 failed to examine any attesting witness to the Will.

The Trial Court discarded the Will, decreed the plaintiff’s suit and the counterclaim of defendants No.3 to 12, and set aside the mutation.

The First Appellate Court affirmed that decision, leading to the present regular second appeal.

The Court applied Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, under which a Will must be attested by at least two witnesses, each of whom must see the testator sign or acknowledge the signature and must sign the Will in the testator’s presence.

It further applied Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which requires at least one attesting witness to be called to prove the execution of a document required by law to be attested, including a Will, where such witness is alive, capable of giving evidence, and subject to the process of the Court.

Consequently, a disputed Will cannot be relied upon unless its execution is proved through an attesting witness.

Defendant No.1 relied on the alleged registered Will to displace the succession rights of Har Kaur’s natural heirs, but she did not examine any of its attesting witnesses.

Registration of the Will did not dispense with the statutory requirement of proving its execution under Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act.

Since the Will was not proved in the prescribed manner, the Courts below rightly discarded it.

In the absence of a validly proved testamentary disposition, the plaintiff and the other heirs succeeded to Har Kaur’s estate according to their respective shares, and the mutation founded on the unproved Will was liable to be set aside.

The High Court found no error of law in the concurrent factual findings warranting interference in second appeal.

The mutation sanctioned in her favour was therefore rightly set aside, and the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 12 were entitled to ownership and joint possession in their respective shares.

The regular second appeal was dismissed with costs, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.