Registered Will Carrying Presumption of Genuineness Cannot Be Discarded on Hyper-Technical Interpretation of Attestation Evidence

The appellant, Hemlata Kalita, filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking probate of a registered Will dated 07.03.2011 executed by her late father, Manik Kalita.

The appellant claimed the testator lived with her because his son (Respondent No. 1) failed to care for him.

Respondent No. 1 contested the Will, alleging it was obtained through undue influence while the testator was bedridden.

The Trial Court dismissed the probate suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove the Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act.

The appellant challenged this dismissal before the Gauhati High Court.

1. Whether the appellant proved the due execution and attestation of the Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act?

2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the probate suit on the grounds of technical deficiencies in evidence?

3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree call for interference by the High Court?

Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which treats probate appeals as first appeals under the CPC, allowing re-appreciation of facts.

Section 63(c) of the Succession Act defines valid execution (attestation by two witnesses).

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requires at least one attesting witness to prove such execution.

The propounder's burden to dispel suspicious circumstances established in Daulat Ram v. Sodha [(2005) 1 SCC 40].

The legal presumption of genuineness attached to registered documents as per Metpalli Lasum Bai v. Metapalli Muthaih [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1488].

The High Court found that the Trial Court adopted a "hyper-technical approach" by requiring witnesses to recite statutory language verbatim regarding "signing in each other's presence".

Upon re-evaluating the testimony of PW-2 (an attesting witness), the Court determined that his identification of signatures and the testator’s presence at the Sub-Registrar's office satisfied Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

The Court noted that the Will was registered, creating a presumption of validity that the respondents failed to rebut with medical evidence of the testator's alleged incapacity.

The court observed that the bequest was natural given that the testator resided with the appellant, and another daughter (Respondent No. 3) supported the Will's validity.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment and decree and granted probate to the appellant, subject to the assessment and payment of the requisite court fees based on the current market value of the scheduled properties.

The Registry was directed to issue the Probate Certificate accordingly.