Mechanical compliance of stipulations under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act does not prove execution of will

Factual Matrix:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 25.11.2021 in the matter of “State of Haryana vs. Harnam Singh (Dead) Thr. LR’s & Ors.” had the occasion to consider whether mechanical compliance of stipulations under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as Act) sufficiently proves the execution of a will.

In the present matter, validity of the will of one Kishan Singh (deceased) was under question. One, Harnam Singh i.e. the Respondent who was not related to Kishan Singh by blood claimed that vide the will executed on 10.12.1974, Kishan Singh had bequeathed agricultural land comprising of 52 kanals and 3 marlas in Kurukshetra to him. However, the Assistant Collector turned down the plea of mutation of the Respondent after the death of Kishan Singh and instead, mutated the land in favour of the Petitioner State by applying the doctrine of escheat.

Aggrieved, the Respondent filed a suit before the Trial Court praying for a decree of declaration that the mutation in favour of the Petitioner State was wrong and the Respondent was the owner in possession of the suit property. The Trial Court vide its order dated 22.10.1981 dismissed the suit filed by the Respondent while holding that the validity of the above-mentioned will was not proven as it was scribed all of a sudden in a very perfunctory and casual manner. Moreover, it has not even been scribed or attested by people who could claim them selves to be intimated with Kishan Singh (deceased). Aggrieved by the order, the Respondent filed a first appeal.

The First Appellate Court vide its order dated 20.07.1982 upheld the decision of the Trial Court and held that thumb impressions on the will were not proved to be of the deceased. Aggrieved by the order, the Respondent filed a second appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana under Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.

The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 05.05.2008 allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent and set aside the concurrent finding of both the lower courts and held that all the witnesses have vouched about the sound state of mind of the testator at the time of execution of will and thus, the Will was proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the Petitioner State filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which vide its order dated 25.11.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court by holding that there was no perversity in the orders of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court.

Analysis of the Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred as the question of law that was formulated by it in compliance of Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) was actually a question of fact. The High Court in this case went into a detailed factual enquiry which was impermissible while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

Additionally, the High Court also erred in holding that the will was proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act merely because the conditions mentioned in Section 63 were complied with in a mechanical way. The evidence of meeting the requirements stipulated under Section 63 of the Act must be reliable. In the present case, the evidences of the witnesses were disbelieved as they failed to inspire the confidence of fact finding Courts. The thumb impression of Kishan Singh was not matched. Additionally, there was contradiction in the evidences of attesting witnesses as regards the place of execution.

Thus, the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court pertaining to will not being proven ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court.