SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Khiru Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Khemia Devi daughter of Ledo Mahto – Respondent 
M. A. No. 274 of 2018
Decided on : 11-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sachinandan Das, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. R. N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aditya Aman, Advocate Ms. Pratyaksha Bhaskar, Advocate

Registration of a testamentary instrument does not waive the mandatory statutory requirement of examining at least one attesting witness to prove its execution. The burden to prove the document according to law rests on the propounder, and unexplained delay in seeking probate further necessitates strict adherence to evidentiary standards.

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Probate proceedings - Mandatory requirement of attesting witness - Mere registration of a testamentary instrument does not dispense with the necessity of examining at least one attesting witness to prove its due execution - The initial onus to prove the document in accordance with law rests upon the propounder - Presumption of due execution attached to a registered document cannot override the statutory mandate requiring the examination of an attesting witness to establish the validity of the document. (Paras 6, 7, 8)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Delay in filing application - Significant delay in filing an application for probate creates suspicious circumstances regarding the due execution of the document, which the propounder must address through clear and cogent evidence - The failure to satisfy mandatory evidentiary requirements cannot be cured by the presumptive value of registration alone, especially when the credibility of the document is challenged by unexplained delay. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the dismissal of an application for the grant of probate of a testamentary document. The document was executed and registered by the testator. The probate application was filed 18 years after the death of the testator. The probate court dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant failed to examine any attesting witness as mandated by law.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the registration of a testamentary document does not absolve the propounder from the specific requirement of examining at least one attesting witness to prove the execution. Compliance with the statutory provisions governing the proof of such documents is mandatory. Furthermore, an 18-year delay in filing for probate introduces high degree of suspicion, which the appellant failed to mitigate.

Issues: Whether the registration of a testamentary document creates a sufficient presumption of due execution to bypass the requirement of examining an attesting witness and whether the delay in filing the application impacts the validity of the claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the examination of at least one attesting witness is a non-negotiable statutory requirement for the probate of a document. Registration provides a presumption of execution but does not relieve the propounder from the substantive duty of proving the document via the required witness, particularly when the protracted delay in seeking probate casts doubt on the document's authenticity.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and grounds for lower court dismissal for lack of attesting witness. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' conflicting views on the evidentiary requirements and the presumptive value of a registered will. (Para 4 , 5)
3. registration of a will does not override mandatory proof requirements under the succession act and evidence act. (Para 6 , 7)
4. mandatory proof of will execution through at least one attesting witness is essential. (Para 8)
5. final confirmation of the lower court's dismissal due to lack of merit. (Para 9)

Order :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. The legatee of the WILL is in appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the dismissal of application for grant of probate of WILL.

2. As per the case of Applicant the WILL was executed and registered by Dego Mahto in his life time on 06.01.1979. The testator died on 03.03.1984 and probate application was filed in 2002 after 18 years.

3. Learned Probate Court dismissed the probate application on the ground that no attesting witness which was required to be examined in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act was examined.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that requirement of the attesting to be examined is dispensed with on his death, or where he cannot be found, does not apply. Further, the WILL being a registered WILL carries a presumptive value with regard to its due execution. It was for the objectors to have led evidence to rebut the presumption of its due execution. Reliance is placed on (2021) 11 SCC 277, Shivakumar Vs. Sharana basappa & Ors.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has defended the impugned order.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the main point for determination before this Court is whether the learned Probate court erred in dismissing the probate application on the ground that attesting witness was not examined despite the fact that the WILL was registered.

7. Law in this regard is not res-integra and as it has been settled by the Apex Court that although a presumption of due execution is there in favour of the registered WILL, but it does not relieve the propounder of WILL to prove as per the provision under Section 63 of the Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act.

8. It has been held by the Apex Court in (2009) 4 SCC 780, Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi Vs. Yunam Joykumar Singh & Ors. that proof of the execution of WILL by attesting witness is a mandatory requirement. Although the WILL is required to be attested by two witnesses, but at least one of them should have been examined. In the present case, not only the attesting witness has not been examined, but there is a whopping delay of 18 years in filing the probate application which itself creates a suspicious circumstance with regard to its due execution. The question of rebutting the presumption would have a reason only after one of the attesting witnesses had been examined. The initial onus was on the propounder of the WILL to prove it by adducing one attesting witness, only thereafter, a presumption of due execution with respect to the WILL could have been drawn.

9. In the present case, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment.

Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top