Failure to prove attestation and testator's signature in accordance with Section 63(c) invalidates a registered Will.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) challenged a judgment of the Trial Court which dismissed his suit for a declaration that a registered Will dated 05/09/2007 [Ex.D-1] executed by his father, Khatanand, in favor of his sister-in-law (Respondent No. 1), was null and void.

The Plaintiff claimed that a subsequent registered Will dated 15/08/2008 [Ex.P-1] and a deed of arrangement revoked the earlier Will and bequeathed the suit land (Khasra No. 748/2) to him and his brother.

The Trial Court had upheld the 2007 Will, citing that its execution was not denied, while dismissing the 2008 Will as fictitious.

1. Whether the propounder proved the due execution, attestation, and validity of the registered deed of Will dated 05/09/2007 (Ex.D-1) in favor of Smt. Asha Saraf.

2. Whether the registered deed of Will dated 15/08/2008 (Ex.P-1) was duly executed by Khatanand in favor of his sons.

The Court applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which mandates that a Will must be signed by the testator and attested by two or more witnesses who saw the testator sign or received a personal acknowledgment of the signature.

It further relied on Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requiring at least one attesting witness to prove execution.

The Court followed the precedent in Daulat Ram v. Sodha (2005) 1 SCC 40, establishing that the propounder must prove the testator signed the Will in a sound state of mind in the presence of two witnesses who also signed in the testator's presence.

The High Court found that the attesting witnesses for the 2007 Will (DW-3 and DW-5) failed to state that the Will was read over to the testator or that they saw the testator sign the document.

Thus, the mandatory requirements of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act remained unfulfilled.

Additionally, a 'Khulasanama' (clarification deed) attached to Ex.D-1 was not signed by the witnesses despite their contradictory claims.

Regarding the 2008 Will (Ex.P-1) relied upon by the Plaintiff, the Court observed upon inspection that one page of the document lacked the testator’s signature, rendering its authenticity doubtful.

It held that the registered Will dated 05/09/2007 (Ex.D-1) was invalid for lack of proven execution and attestation; consequently, the Tehsildar’s mutation order dated 25/07/2012 based on said Will was set aside.

Simultaneously, the Court held that the 2008 Will (Ex.P-1) was also invalid due to missing signatures on its pages.

No costs were awarded.