Probate Granted as Execution Duly Proved; Unmarked Photocopies Cannot Base Allegations of Signature Forgery

The respondent (propounder) filed for probate of the Will and Testament of the deceased testator dated February 29, 2008.

The testator died on September 22, 2011.

The litigation originated as a probate proceeding (PLA/309/2012) but was converted into a Testamentary Suit (TS/4/2022) after the appellant’s husband filed a caveat.

The appellant challenged the Will on grounds of fraud, lack of mental/physical capacity of the testator, and forgery.

Specifically, the appellant contended that the signature on the Will (Exhibit "C") did not match the testator’s signature on a registered deed of conveyance dated May 6, 2011, and argued the trial court should have sent the documents for forensic examination.

A Single Judge of the High Court granted probate, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the Will (Exhibit "C") was a forged document and required forensic examination by a handwriting expert.

2. Whether the propounder successfully proved the execution of the Will in accordance with legal requirements.

3. Whether the testator possessed the requisite mental and physical capacity to execute the Will.

Principles governing the grant of probate under the Indian Succession Act, specifically regarding the proof of execution through attesting witnesses.

Evidentiary requirement that allegations of fraud and forgery must be substantiated by the party alleging them.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, documents marked only "for identification" rather than "exhibits" cannot be relied upon.

Precedents of P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal (AIR 1972 SC 608) and Rama Avatar Soni vs. Mahanta Laxmidhar Das (AIR 2018 SC 5597) are inapplicable when no "admitted" signature is properly introduced into evidence.

The Court found that the propounder fulfilled the statutory requirements for proving the Will by examining herself and two attesting witnesses (both advocates), who testified that the testator signed the Will in their presence and they signed in his.

The appellant’s claim of forgery failed because the registered deed dated May 6, 2011—used as a comparison standard—was never produced in original at the trial; only a photocopy was produced and marked "for identification," not as an exhibit.

The Court reasoned that it could not direct a handwriting expert to compare signatures when there was no "admitted signature" legally introduced into the trial record.

The Court held that the appellant’s twin defenses (fraud and lack of mental capacity) were unsubstantiated by any material evidence and were essentially contradictory.

The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the party to produce original evidence rather than expecting the Court to "embark upon evidence fishing".

The Court held that the propounder successfully proved the Will and that the appellant failed to provide a legal basis for forensic examination due to procedural lapses in introducing evidence.

The appeal (APD/1/2026) was dismissed, and the judgment of the Single Judge granting probate was upheld; No order as to costs was made.