Gopal Krishan & Ors. Vs. Daulat Ram & Ors. [Civil Appeal No(s). 13192 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25645 of 2018]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India in Gopal Krishan & Ors. vs. Daulat Ram & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 13192 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25645 of 2018] delivered a landmark judgment on January 1, 2025, clarifying the execution and validity of an "unprivileged Will" under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Facts and Background
Sanjhi Ram, the testator, owned a 1/4th share of land in Village Umarpura, Gurdaspur, Punjab. He had no children and lived with his nephew, Gopal Krishan. On November 7, 2005, Sanjhi Ram executed a Will in favor of Gopal Krishan and passed away the next day. After inheriting the property through the Will, Gopal Krishan transferred it to his four sons, who later sold the property.
The respondents challenged the Will’s validity, alleging it was forged and fabricated. They sought declarations that they were the rightful owners, that the Will was invalid, and that the mutation based on the Will was illegal. The trial court found the Will suspicious and unreliable. The lower appellate court, however, had set aside the trial court’s decree, holding the Will valid. The High Court reversed this, agreeing with the trial court that the Will was not proved, primarily because the attesting witness did not state that his thumb impression on the Will was affixed “upon the direction of the testator,” a requirement under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.
Legal Issue
The Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting the phrase “by the direction of the testator” under Section 63(c) and determining whether the Will was duly executed and valid.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, through a bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, clarified that Section 63(c) provides alternative methods for attestation:
The Will must be signed or marked by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses; or
It may be signed by some other person in the presence and by the direction of the testator.
The Court held that the High Court erred in requiring the attesting witness to explicitly state that the mark was affixed “upon the direction of the testator.” This requirement applies only when a person other than the testator signs the Will. Here, the attesting witness testified that he saw the testator affix his thumb impression on the Will, which suffices for valid execution under Section 63(c).
The Court referred to its earlier ruling in Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023), emphasizing that the use of “or” in Section 63(c) denotes alternatives, not cumulative conditions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the validity of the Will and the subsequent sale deeds. It held that:
An unprivileged Will is valid if the attesting witnesses have seen the testator sign or affix his mark on the Will.
The phrase “by the direction of the testator” applies only when someone other than the testator signs the Will.
The High Court’s insistence on additional conditions was legally incorrect.
This judgment strengthens the interpretation of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, providing clarity on the execution of unprivileged Wills and protecting the rights of beneficiaries when the testator personally affixes their signature or mark.
RELATED Blog
0 comments