A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The case of Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors., reported in [2025] 1 S.C.R. 93: 2025 INSC 18, addresses the nuanced legal interpretation of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 concerning the validity and attestation of an unprivileged Will. The Testator, Sanjhi Ram, a childless man residing with his nephew Gopal Krishan, executed a Will a day before his death in 2005. The Will bequeathed his 1/4th share in agricultural land to the appellant, who later transferred the same to his sons. The High Court, however, declared the Will unproven due to lack of testimony asserting that the attesting witness had seen the signature made at the “direction of the Testator.” The Supreme Court reversed this ruling, upholding the Will and the related sale deeds, clarifying that Section 63(c) allows for multiple ways to validate a Will, not mandating the “direction” clause unless someone other than the testator signs. The Court emphasized a plain reading of the disjunctive “or” and reiterated that the witness having seen the testator sign suffices for legal attestation under the law. This landmark judgment clarifies statutory interpretation concerning Wills and highlights the significance of testamentary autonomy, proper attestation, and probative testimony in succession disputes.
Keywords: Will, Testator, Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, Attesting Witnesses, Testamentary Capacity
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors.
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13192 of 2024
iii) Judgement Date: 02 January 2025
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
vi) Author: Justice Sanjay Karol
vii) Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 93 : 2025 INSC 18
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
- Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
- Order XLI Rule 31 CPC (Implied through appellate analysis)
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
- Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in RSA No. 1935 of 2015
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
- Civil Law
- Succession Law
- Property Law
- Interpretation of Statutes
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The present appeal arises from a contentious probate dispute centering around the validity and execution of a Will dated 7th November 2005, executed by one Sanjhi Ram, who bequeathed his share of ancestral property to his nephew Gopal Krishan. Sanjhi Ram passed away the very next day, on 8th November 2005. The property was later transferred and sold by the appellant. Dispute arose when the respondents—collateral relatives—filed a civil suit alleging forgery, fabrication, and procedural invalidity. The Trial Court ruled against the Will citing suspicious circumstances. The First Appellate Court reversed that finding, validating the Will. However, the High Court subsequently reinstated the Trial Court’s decree, ruling that the attestation failed statutory requirements under Section 63(c). This Supreme Court judgment corrects the interpretational misapplication and restores the First Appellate Court’s verdict. It establishes how literal statutory interpretation and judicial precedent are essential when scrutinizing testamentary documents in probate matters.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
Sanjhi Ram, an elderly, childless man owning a ¼ share (10 kanals 1 marla) of land in Village Umarpura Khurd, Punjab, lived with his nephew Gopal Krishan, who served and looked after him. On 7th November 2005, he executed a Will bequeathing his share to Gopal Krishan. He passed away on 8th November 2005. The death certificate, however, was issued on 19th November 2005. Acting on the Will, Gopal Krishan transferred the property to his four sons through sale deeds executed in January and February 2006, for a consideration of ₹98,000. Respondents (Nos. 1–7), relatives of the deceased, filed Civil Suit No. 282 of 2006 before the Civil Judge, Gurdaspur, seeking declaration of the Will as forged and fabricated, and subsequent mutations and transfers as null and void. The Trial Court agreed, citing suspicious circumstances including the lack of registration, spacing anomalies in the Will, and the absence of proof of direction by the testator to the witness.
The Lower Appellate Court, however, reversed this, stating the Will was valid, properly attested, and the spacing irregularity alone was not indicative of fabrication. It relied on precedents and the overall clarity of mental faculties of the testator. The High Court, in second appeal, reinstated the Trial Court’s judgment, stating that the attesting witness, DW-1, failed to state the Testator affixed his thumb at his own direction, which is required under Section 63(c). The Supreme Court overruled this, finding the High Court misapplied the law.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether the Will dated 07.11.2005 executed by Sanjhi Ram fulfilled the requirements of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?
ii. Whether the High Court erred in interpreting the expression “by the direction of the testator” in a strict and erroneous manner?
iii. Whether the attestation of the Will was valid despite the absence of explicit mention of the “direction” clause in the attesting witness’s testimony?
iv. Whether procedural irregularities like spacing in the Will and non-registration constitute suspicious circumstances sufficient to invalidate a Will?
v. Whether the First Appellate Court rightly reversed the Trial Court’s findings based on cogent reasoning?
F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The counsels for the appellants submitted that the Will was validly executed and duly attested. They argued that Janak Raj (DW-1), the attesting witness, categorically stated that he saw Sanjhi Ram affix his thumb impression after the contents were read to him and acknowledged. This satisfied Section 63(c).
ii. They emphasized that Section 63(c) uses “or”, not “and”, hence the requirement of having witnessed the Testator’s direction arises only when a third party signs on behalf of the Testator, not when the Testator signs himself.
iii. They submitted that the Testator was mentally sound, as confirmed by DW-1, and no contrary evidence was placed on record. The lower courts never found him to be incapacitated or coerced.
iv. The spacing anomaly in the Will was a natural phenomenon, as held in Bahadur Singh v. Poonam Singh, where narrowing of lines at the end of a one-page Will was not considered suspicious.
v. They contended that suspicious circumstances alleged were imaginary and unsubstantial, and the Will stood proven in law. They also cited Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, (2023) 9 SCC 734, to support the sufficiency of testimony by one attesting witness.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The counsels for the respondents argued that the attesting witness failed to assert that he saw the Testator instruct or direct anyone to sign the Will or affix his thumb impression.
ii. They relied on Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Mandeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91, to submit that strict compliance of Section 63(c) is mandatory, and mere signature is insufficient.
iii. They also cited the spacing anomaly, non-registration, and the Testator’s ill health to argue that these collectively formed suspicious circumstances.
iv. The Will being in favour of the caretaker, Gopal Krishan, who gained substantially, should be scrutinized with suspicion, relying on Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277.
v. They argued that the burden of dispelling suspicion was on the propounder, who failed to examine the scribe or produce any medical certificate regarding Sanjhi Ram’s health.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
Click Here to Read on Indian Kanoon
ii. Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Pertaining to appellate judgments’ duty to record reasons (inferred).
I) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i. The Court held that Section 63(c) provides alternative modes of attestation using the word “or”. Since the witness testified he saw the Testator sign, there was no requirement to prove the direction clause.
ii. The Court relied on the grammatical interpretation and confirmed from Justice G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation that unless ambiguity exists, words must retain their natural meaning.
iii. The Will was validly executed. Suspicion based on spacing and illness was not material, as there was no evidence of unsound mind or coercion.
b. OBITER DICTA
i. The Court emphasized that when the Testator himself signs the Will, the requirement of proving “direction” under Section 63(c) does not arise. That clause applies only when someone else signs on the testator’s behalf.
ii. The Court also stated that non-registration of a Will or line spacing anomalies are not in themselves suspicious circumstances unless combined with other tangible evidence.
c. GUIDELINES
- Attestation requirements must be interpreted in light of the alternatives provided in Section 63(c).
- Courts must avoid hyper-technical interpretations that negate testamentary autonomy.
- Suspicious circumstances must be real, germane, and valid, not speculative.
- Literal interpretation is preferred unless it leads to absurd results.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
This judgment reaffirms the primacy of testamentary autonomy and clarifies statutory interpretation principles in succession law. By restoring the validity of the Will, the Supreme Court preserves the intention of the Testator and guards against over-technical dismissals of legitimate documents. It serves as a key precedent on the correct reading of Section 63(c) and will aid lower courts in avoiding erroneous applications of procedural thresholds.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
- Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, (2023) 9 SCC 734
- Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277
- Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Mandeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91
- Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157
- Bahadur Singh v. Poonam Singh (Rajasthan High Court)
b. Important Statutes Referred
- Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rule 31 (implied)
