Back
Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Kaur: Can Attest Will, Rules
In a significant ruling clarifying the intersection of testamentary law and evidence, the has held that a person who drafts a will as a can also serve as an , provided the requisite intention to attest—the —is clearly established. Justice Vikas Suri, presiding over a , affirmed that no legal bar prevents a single individual from performing both roles, so long as the witness’s conscious purpose is to certify the of the will in accordance with .
The decision came in the long-running property dispute , which involved a 79-square-yard house in Janta Colony, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ challenge to a dated , executed by the deceased, Harbhajan Kaur, in favour of Gurwinder Kaur.
The Property Dispute
Harbhajan Kaur, an issueless widow, originally owned the house. She had earlier executed a will in favour of her sister, Amarjit Kaur, but revoked it through a registered deed in after alleging that Amarjit’s intentions had turned dishonest. Subsequently, Harbhajan Kaur executed a in 2013 bequeathing the property to Gurwinder Kaur, who claimed to be her adopted daughter. During the pendency of the suit, Harbhajan Kaur died, and Gurwinder Kaur was brought on record as her legal representative.
The defendants—Amarjit Kaur, her husband, and their children—resisted the claim, relying on an alleged agreement to sell dated . However, the original agreement was never produced or proved, and no evidence of payment of the stated consideration was led. The trial court decreed the suit for possession and permanent injunction, findings that were upheld by the first appellate court on . The concurrent findings on title were not challenged before the High Court.
The Legal Challenge
Before the High Court, the appellants advanced two primary arguments. First, they contended that since the property belonged to a female Hindu, succession should be governed by , which prescribe the rules of for female Hindus. Second, they argued that the will executed by Harbhajan Kaur was invalid because one of its attesting witnesses, , had also signed the document as its , and a single person could not occupy both capacities.
Court’s Analysis on Succession
Justice Vikas Suri rejected the first submission at the threshold, observing that Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act apply only when a female Hindu dies intestate—that is, without leaving a valid will. Since Harbhajan Kaur had executed a that was duly proved, was governed by , read with the . The court emphasised that the existence of a valid will excludes the operation of intestacy rules, and the appellants’ reliance on the general rules of succession was misplaced.
as : The Core Legal Issue
On the second issue, the court undertook a detailed examination of the law relating to attestation of wills. Referring to , which requires an unprivileged will to be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom must have seen the testator sign or acknowledge his signature and must sign the will in the testator’s presence, the court noted that the purpose of attestation is distinct from the act of writing the will.
The court relied on the ’s decision in Mathew Oommen v. Suseela Mathew (2006) and N. Kamalam v. Ayyasamy (2001) to reiterate that there is no prohibition in law against a person acting as both and . What is essential is that the person must have the intention to attest—the —and must certify execution by subscribing his name with a conscious intention to attest.
Justice Suri clarified: “A conjoint reading of Section 63 of the Succession Act and would show that the purpose for which a Will is attested by a witness, is distinctly defined. An would attest the Will on the request made by the testator for the purpose of of the Will and in accordance with the mandate of Section 63 of the Succession Act. Thus, it has to come in evidence that the had the intention to attest, i.e. the . It is in such circumstances that a , who has though appended his signatures to the testamentary disposition, cannot be treated to be an unless he had the aforesaid intention of being an .”
The court distinguished the settled principle that a cannot be treated as an merely by having written the document. In the present case, S.L. Mahey had signed both as and as , and his deposition clearly supported the will. The court found that despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing emerged to cast doubt on his credibility or the genuineness of his dual signature. The fact that the will was already prepared before the testator came to him did not, by itself, disprove his role as .
Court’s Decision
The High Court held that the courts below had recorded based on evidence, and no arose for consideration under . The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Implications for Legal Practice
This ruling provides clarity for practitioners drafting and executing wills. It confirms that a person who writes the will (the ) may also attest it, provided that person consciously intends to act as a witness to its execution. The decision underscores the importance of leading clear evidence of the witness’s where the same person performs both functions. In an era where registered wills are increasingly common, this judgment reassures that dual-role attestations are not automatically invalid, provided the statutory requirements are met.
The court’s reliance on settled precedents reinforces the need for a factual inquiry into the witness’s intention rather than a mechanical disqualification. Legal professionals should ensure that when a also attests, the deed and the witness’s deposition make explicit that the signature was affixed for the purpose of attesting the will, not merely for drafting it.
Conclusion
The ’s decision in Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Kaur is a welcome affirmation of the flexibility of testamentary law. By holding that the roles of and can coexist without legal impediment, the court has provided a practical solution that aligns with the realities of will execution. The judgment also reiterates the primacy of over intestacy when a valid will exists, thereby safeguarding the testator’s last wishes. For the legal community, it serves as a reminder that form must not override substance, and that the intention behind a signature—whether as or witness—is the ultimate touchstone.
