Introduction:

In a landmark ruling, the Madras High Court clarified that a will over 30 years old, produced from proper custody, falls under the presumption provided by Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). This presumption allows the court to accept the authenticity of the signature, execution, and attestation of such documents unless contested with evidence to the contrary. The case, involving a family property dispute, centered around an unregistered will, triggering an examination of Section 90’s interplay with other legal provisions, including Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the IEA.

Case Background:

The dispute arose when Marathal, the appellant, challenged the authenticity of a 40-year-old unregistered will executed by her late mother, Palaniammal, which left the entire family property to her brother, Marappan. Marathal sought a partition of the property, asserting her share and claiming the will was a forgery. The trial focused on whether the presumption under Section 90 could validate the will’s execution despite questions about its delayed production and lack of registration.

Appellant’s Arguments:

Marathal, the appellant, contended that the will was fabricated, pointing to its delayed production—nearly 40 years after her mother’s death—as a sign of its dubious nature. She argued that the statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, which mandates proper execution and attestation of wills, and Section 68 of the IEA, which requires attesting witnesses to testify, were not followed. Moreover, the unregistered status of the will fueled her suspicion that it was not genuine.

Respondent’s Defense:

In contrast, the respondent, Marappan, maintained the will’s authenticity. He argued that the delay in producing the will was because there had been no earlier need to present it, given his continuous possession of the property since his mother’s death. Marappan emphasized that the will, though unregistered, had been duly attested and executed, and the presumption under Section 90 IEA should apply. Additionally, he argued that registration was not mandatory for wills, and the will’s validity could not be questioned solely on this basis.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice V Lakshminarayanan ruled in favor of Marappan, applying the presumption under Section 90 of the IEA. The court held that when a will is over 30 years old and produced from proper custody, the signature, execution, and attestation can be presumed valid. Importantly, the court clarified that the presumption under Section 90 does not extend to the truthfulness of the document’s contents, which must still be proved through other means.

The court dismissed the appellant’s objections about the will’s delayed production, noting that the circumstances surrounding Palaniammal’s illness at the time of execution were consistent with the will’s provisions. The court also rejected the appellant’s argument regarding the will’s unregistered status, highlighting that registration is not a prerequisite for a will’s validity.

Ultimately, the court upheld the will as valid, finding no reason to doubt its authenticity and emphasizing that the presumption under Section 90 IEA was applicable. Marathal’s appeal was dismissed, and the court reaffirmed that the will had been properly executed, attested, and supported by credible testimony.