IMPORTANT POINT
The execution of a will must comply with statutory requirements, including proper attestation by witnesses; failure to do so invalidates the will.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. Ninnong Ratan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sanjay Taye, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.

2. The challenge in the present proceeding by the appellant, herein, is to a judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, passed by the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, in PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, granting probate of a will, dated 31.10.2006, to the respondent, herein.

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under:

The sole respondent, herein, had instituted the PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, praying for grant of probate to a will, dated 31.10.2006, executed by his mother Late Opet Dai.

It is to be noted that the appellant, herein, is the brother of the sole respondent, herein. The will, dated 31.10.2006, was projected to be the last will of Late Opet Dai, the mother of the appellant, herein, as well as mother of the sole respondent.

The sole respondent, in the above-noted PSG Probate Case No.246/2012, had projected that the will, dated 31.10.2006, was duly executed by the testator and the same was attested by the attesting witnesses in accordance with the provisions by law.

It was further projected that the will, in question, was registered before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, East Siang District, Pasighat, vide Registration No. 383, dated 31.10.2006.

The Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, basing on the materials coming on record, had framed 3(three) issues in the matter, vide order, dated 28.04.2014. Thereafter, on conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, vide judgment & order, dated 27.09.2016, was pleased to allow PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, by granting a probate of the said will, dated 31.10.2006, in favour of the sole respondent.

Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present proceeding before this Court.

4. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel for the appellant, herein, has, at the outset, submitted that the will, dated 31.10.2006, projected to be the last will of the mother of the appellant, namely, Late Opet Dai, was not executed in the manner required under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has further submitted that the requirement of the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was also not complied with in the matter.

5. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has also submitted that the projected attesting witnesses of the execution of the will, dated 31.10.2006, had denied affixing their signatures on the will and had also projected that their signatures were forged on the will, in question.

6. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, by referring to the evidences brought on record on behalf of the sole respondent, herein, in the proceedings of PSG Probate Case No. 246/2012, has submitted that the sole respondent had adduced evidences of himself and his wife as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively. However, in their depositions, they had not deposed that the witnesses attesting the will, dated 31.10.2006, had done so in their presence, and/or, that, they had seen the testatrix signing the said will.

7. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has submitted that none of the attesting witnesses had deposed as the witnesses of PW-1. The learned counsel has further submitted that 3(three) attesting witnesses had deposed as DWs and they had, in their evidence, categorically denied having attested the will, dated 31.10.2006.

8. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel, has submitted that the will, dated 31.10.2006, was purportedly registered by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, East Siang District, Pasighat. However, i