Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India, in Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors., delivered a significant judgment clarifying the procedural requirements for executing an unprivileged Will under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The dispute revolved around the validity of a Will executed by the testator in favor of the appellants. The respondents argued that the execution of the Will was invalid due to the absence of the testator’s thumb impression. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, but the First Appellate Court overturned this decision. Subsequently, the High Court allowed the respondents’ second appeal, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court. The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol set aside the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing that Section 63(c) provides alternative conditions for the execution of a Will and does not require the fulfillment of all conditions cumulatively.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The respondents contended that the Will was not validly executed because the testator had not affixed his thumb impression. They argued that under condition (b) of Section 63(c), the attesting witnesses must witness another person signing or affixing a mark on the testator’s behalf and under his direction. Since no such direction was issued by the testator, the Will’s execution was claimed to be invalid. The respondents also emphasized that the procedural requirements under Section 63(c) must be strictly followed, and any deviation renders the Will unenforceable. On the other hand, the appellants argued that the testator was mentally competent and had personally affixed his thumb impression on the Will. They maintained that the attesting witnesses had seen the testator affixing his thumb mark, fulfilling condition (a) under Section 63(c). The appellants contended that condition (b) was irrelevant as the testator did not direct any other person to sign on his behalf. They asserted that the testimony of DW-1, who witnessed the testator signing the Will, confirmed compliance with Section 63(c) and validated the Will’s execution.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, holding that the execution of the unprivileged Will was valid. The judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol clarified that Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act employs the term “or,” indicating that any one of the specified conditions is sufficient to validate a Will’s execution. The Court emphasized that the attesting witnesses’ testimony that they had seen the testator affix his thumb mark on the Will satisfied condition (a). It ruled that condition (b), requiring the attesting witnesses to observe another person signing at the testator’s direction, comes into play only when the testator himself does not sign or affix his mark. Since the testator in this case personally affixed his thumb mark, condition (b) was deemed inapplicable. The Court observed that the High Court erred in requiring compliance with conditions (b) and (c) when only one condition was necessary. The testimony of DW-1 confirmed the testator’s thumb impression, thereby ensuring compliance with Section 63(c). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the First Appellate Court’s judgment in favor of the appellants.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces clarity regarding the execution of unprivileged Wills under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. By emphasizing that the conditions are alternatives rather than cumulative requirements, the judgment simplifies the legal framework surrounding Wills. It underscores the sufficiency of compliance with any one condition of Section 63(c) to validate a Will, protecting the testator’s intent and ensuring procedural fairness.