Bombay High Court Allows Marking of Will in Testamentary Suit Despite Disputed Execution. Court holds that attesting witness's affidavit and oral evidence sufficiently prove due execution under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 76
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The matter pertains to Testamentary Suit No. 46 of 1997 arising out of Testamentary Petition No. 308 of 1997 concerning the estate of Raju Muthaya Shetty, who died on 29th November, 1996. The petitioner, The Maharashtra Executor & Trustee Co. Ltd., is the sole executor appointed under the last Will and testament of the deceased dated 9th August, 1995. The caveators disputed the execution of the Will. The petitioner examined five witnesses, including the attesting witness Mangesh Mulye, who filed an affidavit regarding attestation on 10th December, 1997. The other attesting witness, Dayanand Karkera, died on 23rd April, 1999, prior to the filing of the petition. The court considered the oral evidence led by the petitioner, including the cross-examination of Mr. Sudhir Joshi, who participated in the preparation of the Will. The court noted that the signature of the testator was marked as Exh. P5, and the signatures of the attesting witnesses were marked as Exh. P6 and P7. The court held that the evidence of the surviving attesting witness and the circumstances sufficiently proved due execution of the Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court ordered that the Will be marked as an exhibit in the suit.

Headnote

A) Succession Law - Execution of Will - Proof of Attestation - Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court considered whether the Will was duly attested by two witnesses as required by law - The attesting witness Mangesh Mulye filed an affidavit and was examined, and the other attesting witness Dayanand Karkera died prior to filing of the petition - The court held that the evidence of the surviving attesting witness and the circumstances sufficiently proved due execution - The Will was ordered to be marked (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Will dated 9th August, 1995 executed by Raju Muthaya Shetty has been duly proved in accordance with law for the purpose of marking it.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the marking of the Will dated 9th August, 1995 executed by Raju Muthaya Shetty, holding that the evidence of the attesting witness and circumstances sufficiently proved due execution.

Law Points

  • Execution of Will
  • Attestation
  • Proof of Will
  • Section 63 Indian Succession Act
  • 1925
  • Section 68 Indian Evidence Act
  • 1872
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (10) 143

Testamentary Suit No. 46 of 1997 in Testamentary Petition No. 308 of 1997

2013-10-18

R.D. Dhanuka J.

Mr. Shailesh Shah, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Mamta Sadh i/by M/s. Zohair & Co. for applicant in Chamber summons and defendant nos. 4 and 5 in Suit; Mr. U.J. Makhija i/by Ms. Manju Rajbhar for respondent nos. 1 to 3; Mr. Milind Shewale for plaintiff in T.S. No. 46 of 1997

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Testamentary Suit for marking of Will

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought marking of the Will dated 9th August, 1995 executed by the testator Raju Muthaya Shetty.

Filing Reason

The caveators disputed the execution of the Will, necessitating proof of due execution.

Issues

Whether the Will dated 9th August, 1995 has been duly proved in accordance with law for the purpose of marking it.

Submissions/Arguments

Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel for defendant nos. 4 and 5 (supporting petitioners) invited attention to oral evidence led by witnesses examined by petitioners. The caveators disputed the execution of the Will.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the evidence of the surviving attesting witness, Mangesh Mulye, along with the circumstances, sufficiently proved the due execution of the Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Judgment Excerpts

It is the case of the petitioner that Raju Shetty, the testator who died on 29th November, 1996 had executed will and testament dated 9th August, 1995. The caveators have disputed the execution of the said will. Mr. Mangesh Mulye had filed his affidavit regarding attestation on 10th December, 1997.

Procedural History

The Testamentary Petition No. 308 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner. The matter was placed on board for marking of the Will. The court reserved judgment on 30/08/2013 and pronounced on 18/10/2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Succession Act, 1925: 63
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 68
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses State's Petition Challenging Refusal to Extend Time for Filing Written Statement in Medical Negligence Suit. Delay of Over 5 Years in Filing Written Statement Not Condonable Under Order XXVII Rule 7 CPC as No Suf...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Marking of Will in Testamentary Suit Despite Disputed Execution. Court holds that attesting witness's affidavit and oral evidence sufficiently prove due execution under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.