Case Note & Summary
Constitution of India, 1950 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Interpretation of Statutes – Execution and Attestation of Will – Validity of Will
Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63(c) – Whether attestation requires an explicit statement from the witness that the testator directed the signing of the Will – Held, the word or in Section 63(c) is disjunctive and does not mandate such a requirement.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – High Court’s power to interfere with concurrent findings – Held, High Court erred in interfering without framing a substantial question of law.
Will – Validity – Suspicious Circumstances – Minor spacing irregularities do not invalidate a Will – Mental faculties of the testator must be questioned with substantive evidence.
Judicial Interpretation – The interpretation of “by the direction of the testator” must be based on statutory language – A conjunctive reading is not warranted unless explicitly required.
HeldThe Supreme Court held that the Will of Sanjhi Ram was valid, and the High Court erroneously interpreted Section 63(c) by requiring an explicit attestation of direction. The sale deeds executed by Gopal Krishan were upheld. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment was set aside.
Issue of Consideration
GOPAL KRISHAN & ORS. VERSUS DAULAT RAM & ORS.
