Beneficiaries Signing As Witnesses & Non-Compliance With S.63(c) Of Succession Act Vitiates Will; Madras High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Findings - 2025-09-02

Beneficiaries Signing As Witnesses Vitiates Will, Madras HC Rules, Sets Aside Lower Court Judgments

Chennai: The Madras High Court has overturned the concurrent findings of two lower courts, holding that Wills are rendered invalid when beneficiaries actively participate by signing as witnesses and when the mandatory attestation requirements under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, are not met. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan allowed a second appeal in a long-standing partition suit, granting the plaintiffs their claimed share in the ancestral property.

Case Background

The case was initiated by two brothers, L.S. Jayaprakash and L.S. Suresh, who are the grandsons of a pre-deceased daughter of the late Radhakrishnan. They filed a suit for partition in 2002, claiming a 2/14th share in three properties, arguing that Radhakrishnan had died intestate (without a Will).

The defendants, who are the other legal heirs of Radhakrishnan, contested the suit. They produced five registered Wills, claiming they were jointly executed by Radhakrishnan and his wife, Dhanalakshmi (the first defendant). These Wills, they argued, governed the distribution of the properties. Both the Principal Sub Court and the Principal District Court in Salem had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, upholding the validity of these Wills. The plaintiffs then brought the matter before the Madras High Court in a second appeal.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appellants' (Plaintiffs') Contentions: Senior Advocate Mr. T.P. Manoharan, representing the appellants, raised several critical arguments challenging the validity of the Wills:

- Suspicious Circumstances: The beneficiaries of the Wills (the defendants) had also signed as attesting witnesses, indicating active participation and potential undue influence.

- Unnatural Bequest: The plaintiffs were bequeathed a minuscule and impractical plot of 319 sq. ft. with a 7-foot width, while the third defendant, with whom the testators resided, received a disproportionately large share of 2028 sq. ft.

- Failure to Testify: The beneficiary-witnesses did not enter the witness box to explain the unequal distribution and clear the cloud of suspicion surrounding the Wills' execution.

- Non-Compliance with Law: The Wills failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, which dictates that witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator, who must have signed in their presence.

- Premature Enforcement: The Wills stipulated they would only come into effect after the death of both testators. Since the co-testatrix (first defendant) was alive when the lower courts passed their judgments, the Wills were not yet legally enforceable.

Respondents' (Defendants') Defence: Mr. I.Abrar Mohd. Abdullah, counsel for the respondents, argued that:

- The Wills were proven through the testimony of an attesting witness (DW2) and the scribe (DW3).

- The registration of the Wills created a presumption of genuineness.

- It was natural for family members to be present and sign the Wills executed by their parents.

- The plaintiffs were not completely disinherited and were merely dissatisfied with their share, which cannot be a ground to invalidate the Wills.

High Court's Scrutiny and Ruling

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan took up the substantial questions of law, focusing on the proof, validity, and enforceability of the Wills. The court noted that the lower courts had failed to address several critical legal and factual issues.

The judgment emphasized that mere registration does not grant an "irrebuttable presumption of genuineness" to a Will, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The court found several compelling factors that the lower courts had overlooked:

"The fact that the beneficiaries to the Will had signed as witnesses had not at all been discussed by both the Courts below. The fact that the 1st defendant was alive and therefore, the Wills did not come into existence and could not be acted upon had not been discussed by both the Courts below."

The Court held that the active participation of beneficiaries as witnesses was a "compelling factor" that raised a strong presumption against them, especially since they failed to testify and explain the circumstances.

"The fact that the 2nd – 6th defendants had actively participated in the Will by affixing their signatures as witnesses but have still not come forward to depose the circumstances surrounding the division of the properties necessitates a strong presumption to be drawn against them."

Crucially, the Court found a fatal flaw in the documents themselves. The Wills did not contain the necessary statement confirming compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act—that the testator and witnesses had all signed in each other's presence.

"When the documents themselves do not reflect compliance of the mandatory provisions under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, no evidence can overcome that particular defect in that document."

Final Verdict

Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that the defendants, who propounded the Wills, had failed to prove them in the manner known to law. The court answered all substantial questions of law in favour of the appellants.

Setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court, the High Court allowed the second appeal and passed a preliminary decree for partition, granting the plaintiffs their undivided 2/14th share in the suit properties.