Non-compliance with mandatory double attestation and animus attestandi requirements invalidates a Will.

The appellant field a probate petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA), propounding a Will dated 10/20.09.2004 allegedly executed by his father, Late Ved Ram Anand

The Will bequeathed the testator's sole property and moveable assets to the appellant, effectively excluding two of his other children (Respondent Nos. 2 4), despite a previous 1993 Will that had included another son

The appellant claimed the testator had disowned the contesting respondents due to ill-treatment

One attesting witness, Mahendra Pal Rastogi, testified that he signed the Will on 20.09.2004, whereas the testator had signed it on 10.09.2004

A second individual, Dr. K.K. Rathi, signed the document on 21.09.2004 with a certification regarding the testator's health

The Trial Court dismissed the petition, finding the Will shrouded in suspicious circumstances and improperly executed

1. Whether Dr. K.K. Rathi can be considered a valid "attesting witness" within the meaning of the law

2. Whether the execution of the Will was duly proved in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 63(c) of the ISA and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act

The court applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which mandates that a Will must be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom must see the testator sign or receive a personal acknowledgment of the signature

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

Section 71, which allows other evidence only if attesting witnesses deny or forget the execution

The court followed the precedent in Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, which holds that the testifying witness must prove not just their own attestation but the proper attestation by the other witness to satisfy the "two-witness" mandate

The Court found that the Will failed the test of "animus attestandi" regarding the second witness, Dr. K.K. Rathi. Since Rathi merely signed the document on a subsequent date (21.09.2004) to certify the testator’s health, he did not bear witness to the execution as required by Section 63 of the ISA

Regarding the first witness, Mahendra Pal Rastogi, he admitted he was not present on 10.09.2004 when the testator signed the document; he only signed it ten days later

The Court noted that the appellant’s own testimony was contradictory, as he claimed in cross-examination that certain signatures were made on 20.09.2004 when the document showed 10.09.2004. This discrepancy, combined with the fact that the witnesses did not see the testator sign nor sign in each other's presence as per the statutory scheme, rendered the proof of execution deficient

It concluded that Dr. Rathi was not an attesting witness and that the testimony of the sole appearing witness failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 63(c) of the ISA and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Will was shrouded in suspicious circumstances and lacked legal validity