Advocates:
A.M.KHANWILKAR, K.L.Taneja, RAJIV B.MASODKAR

In the judgment, the will was not proved solely by the attesting witnesses. The trial court analyzed the evidence of the witnesses to determine whether the execution of the will was properly established according to legal requirements. It was found that none of the witnesses, except Sheikh Nabi, deposed that Lachiram had signed the will in their presence, and even Sheikh Nabi did not confirm that Lachiram signed the will before him. The court emphasized that for a will to be properly proved, it must be attested in accordance with the law, which requires that at least one attesting witness must testify to the execution, including observing the testator sign or acknowledge the signature, and that the attestation must be proven in court (!) .

The court highlighted that the evidence did not establish that Lachiram signed the will in the presence of the attesting witnesses or that proper attestation as required by law was carried out. Therefore, the parameters used to verify the will included the legal requirements of attestation and execution, which were not satisfied in this case. The court underscored that the law mandates specific proof of execution, and assumptions or broad inferences without direct evidence of signing in the presence of witnesses are insufficient to establish the validity of the will (!) (!) .

In summary, the will was not proved merely through the witnesses' testimony; instead, the court required and found that proper attestation and proof of execution, as prescribed by law, were absent in this case.