Mere Registration of a Will Cannot Substitute for Proof of Due Execution and Attestation.

The litigation involves a dispute among siblings over the estate of their deceased mother, Siriya Pushpam.

The first respondent (Jansirani) propounded a registered Will dated 24.10.2005 (Ex.A.1), claiming she was the sole legatee.

Conversely, the appellants sought partition, alleging the mother died intestate and the Will was invalid.

Jansirani filed suits for permanent injunction and declaration to nullify a settlement deed executed by their father in favor of the other siblings.

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld the Will’s validity based on its registration and the testimony of one attesting witness (P.W.2) and a Sub-Registrar official (P.W.5).

The appellants challenged these findings in a Second Appeal, asserting the Will was not proved per statutory requirements.

1. Whether Exhibit A.1 Will was proved in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which mandates that a Will must be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or received a personal acknowledgment of the signature.

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requiring at least one attesting witness to be examined to prove execution.

Mere registration does not dispense with the proof of due execution and attestation, and a general statement about registration procedures is insufficient (Govindan Chettiar v. Akilandam (1997-3-L.W. 673) and Kasibai v. Parwatibai ((1995) 6 SCC 213)).

The High Court found that the lower courts erred by equating registration formalities with legal proof of execution.

Upon reviewing the deposition of P.W.2 (the attesting witness), the Court noted she failed to state that the testatrix signed the Will in her presence or that she (P.W.2) signed in the presence of the testatrix.

P.W.2 did not identify the signature of the testatrix or her own signature on the document in court.

The second attesting witness (D.W.2) testified against the Will's due execution.

The Court highlighted that the testimony of the Sub-Registrar official (P.W.5) only covered registration procedures, which cannot substitute for the specific requirements of Section 63(c).

The Court held the findings of the lower courts were perverse as they misread the evidence and ignored the lack of positive assertion regarding the physical act of attestation.

The Second Appeals were allowed, the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were set aside, and the Will was declared invalid.

The Court dismissed the application for additional evidence (C.M.P.(MD)No.6561 of 2024), finding the documents (rent control proceedings) were not germane to the core legal issue.