Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Illegality of notarization due to incapacity of the testator - Several sources highlight suspicious circumstances surrounding the notarization of the will, notably that the testator was unable to speak or hold a pen at the time of execution, raising questions about the validity of the notarization process. For instance, ["MEENADCHIPILLAI v. KARTHIGESU"] states, The testator, unable to speak at all that day, and notes that the notary had to send for Krishnar to sign as a witness, indicating the testator's incapacity during signing. Similarly, ["Meenadchipillai v Karthigesu - Supreme Court"] emphasizes that the testator was so ill at the time of execution that he was unable to speak or to hold a pen, and that the only witnesses claimed to have spoken to him, which the court found suspicious. Multiple sources, including ["SANJEEV DESAI Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. - Delhi"], ["Mr.Suraj Bhan vs State & Anr. - Delhi"], and ["Mr.Suraj Bhan vs State & Anr. - Delhi"], confirm that the testator did not sign in the presence of the notary, and that the notary had not examined the testator, with some not seeing or meeting the testator at all. This pattern suggests that the notarization may have been conducted unlawfully, without the testator's genuine participation or awareness.
Testator's incapacity and circumstances during execution - The evidence indicates that the testator was severely ill, unable to speak, and physically incapable of signing. ["MEENADCHIPILLAI v. KARTHIGESU"] reports that the testator showed the Notary his right thumb, and after the Notary had daubed it with ink the testator put his thumb impression, implying reliance on thumb impression due to inability to sign. Further, ["Meenadchipillai v Karthigesu - Supreme Court"] states, the testator was so ill at the time of execution that he was unable to speak or to hold a pen, and that witnesses confirmed his state of health. Additionally, detailed medical records from multiple sources (["RE: SARAH BINTI ABDULLAH @ HEW LEE LING (P) - High Court"], [""], [""], etc.) describe the testator undergoing treatment with saline drips, suppositories, and suffering from conditions like cancer, stroke, and urinary infections during the relevant period, reinforcing his physical incapacity at the time of purported signing. These circumstances cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the will and the legality of its notarization.
Lack of proper procedure and absence of testator's signature in presence of notary - Several reports, including ["Mr.Suraj Bhan vs State & Anr. - Delhi"], ["Mr.Suraj Bhan vs State & Anr. - Delhi"], and ["Vytla Venkatarao VS Edupuganti Narayana Rao - Andhra Pradesh"], highlight that the testator did not sign the document in the presence of the notary, nor was the notary examined or present during the signing. For example, ["Mr.Suraj Bhan vs State & Anr. - Delhi"] notes, the testator did not sign in his presence, and the notary even affixed his rubber stamp on the photograph, indicating procedural irregularities. Moreover, ["Mr.Suraj Bhan vs State & Anr. - Delhi"] states, the notary public has not been examined, and questions how signatures were attested without the notary having seen or met the testator. These procedural lapses further undermine the validity of the notarized document, suggesting it may have been falsely attested or executed unlawfully.
Analysis and Conclusion - The collective evidence from these sources strongly indicates that the notarization of the declaration as a will was conducted illegally. The testator's documented physical incapacity, the suspicious circumstances of signing (thumb impression instead of signature, absence of the testator in notarization), and procedural irregularities (notary not examining the testator, signatures not signed in presence of the notary) demonstrate that the notarized declaration was likely not executed in accordance with legal requirements. Therefore, such notarization is deemed invalid, and the will's authenticity is highly questionable.
In the realm of estate planning and legal documentation, notarization serves as a critical safeguard to verify authenticity. But what happens when a notary notarizes a declaration for a testator who is physically unable to communicate, such as due to a tube inserted in their neck? This scenario raises serious questions about the validity of such notarizations and the procedural hurdles in holding notaries accountable.
Consider this real legal query: notary illegally notarized declaration as testator was unable to speak as tube was inserted in neck. This issue not only touches on the notary's authority but also procedural laws governing criminal proceedings against them. While this is general information based on case law and should not be taken as specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your situation—this post breaks down the key rulings, related cases, and implications.
At the heart of many such disputes is Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which mandates strict procedures for initiating criminal proceedings against a notary. The provision states: no court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary except on a complaint made by an officer authorized in this behalfJEETENDRASINH JORAVARSINH GOHIL VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 254. Without a written complaint from an authorized officer, any FIR or proceedings against the notary are invalid.
In a pivotal case, a notary faced charges under various IPC sections for allegedly notarizing fraudulent documents, including a declaration from a testator unable to speak due to a medical tube. The court quashed the FIR, ruling that the initiation of proceedings required a written complaint by an authorized officer under Section 13, which was absent JEETENDRASINH JORAVARSINH GOHIL VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 254. This rendered the notary's accountability in criminal proceedings untenable.
This ruling emphasizes that even if a notarization appears irregular—such as when a testator cannot speak—challenging it criminally demands adherence to statutory protocols.
The scenario involved a testator in critical condition, with a tube inserted in his neck, rendering him unable to speak. One account notes: Since a tube was inserted on his neck, he was unable to speak, but he has not stated so before police. After discharge, police came to his house and he could give statement only after a few days since he was unable to speakNajmudheen, S/o Eassa Haji VS State Of Kerala - 2019 Supreme(Ker) 1055. Such circumstances question whether the notary could properly verify the testator's intent and capacity.
The court's focus, however, was not solely on the testator's condition but on the prosecution's failure to follow protocol. The notary’s authorization to notarize documents in this context is effectively nullified for criminal purposes due to the invalid initiation JEETENDRASINH JORAVARSINH GOHIL VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 254. This does not automatically invalidate the document civilly but underscores risks in enforcement.
Several judgments highlight patterns of notary irregularities, particularly with incapacitated or deceased testators:
Post-Death Notarization: In one instance, allegations arose that a Notary notarized a 'Will' after the death of testatorKailash Narayan VS State of M. P.. The court refused to quash charges solely on Section 13 grounds, noting courts take cognizance of offenses, not offenders, and invalid investigations do not always nullify trials unless miscarriage of justice occurs Kailash Narayan VS State of M. P.. This contrasts with the main case, showing outcomes vary by facts.
Notarization Without Testator Presence: Multiple cases reveal notaries affixing stamps without seeing the testator. For example: It is an admitted case that the testator did not go to the court to get the will notarized. Notary public has not been examined in this case... Without seeing the testator the notary even affixed his rubber stamp on the photographSuraj Bhan vs StateMr.Suraj Bhan vs State & Anr.Mr.Suraj Bhan vs State & Anr.. Such practices fuel suspicions of fraud.
Self-Attestation and Overseas Notarization: Doubts over wills notarized post-execution or abroad were dismissed when evidence supported authenticity. One court held that self-attestation and notarization of a Will's last page in the USA did not invalidate the original WillSANJEEV DESAI VS STATE NCT OF DELHI - 2016 Supreme(Del) 3382. However, Will attested, which has been done after the death of the Testator raised flags in another SANJEEV DESAI vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS..
Historical Context: Older cases discuss testators in extremis unable to speak or move, yet allowing nuncupative wills under witnesses, but stressing proper attestation IN THE MATTER OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF KOLAMBAPATABENDIGE ABRAHAM PERERA OF HORATUDWA DECEASED: K. HARAMANIS PERERA AND ANOTHER APPLICATION AND PESPONDANTS AND K. JOHANA PERERA AND ELEVEN OTHERS RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.
These examples illustrate that while physical incapacity like a neck tube complicates verification, procedural lapses in prosecution often decide notary liability.
Notaries must ensure personal verification of signatories' capacity. Generally:- Verify identity and voluntariness, especially with medical impairments.- Maintain detailed registers, as lack of entries can undermine defense SUNIL JAIN VS ZAMIRUDDIN - 2017 Supreme(Del) 1552.- Challenge invalid proceedings early under CrPC Section 482.
Authorities must file written complaints by authorized officers before FIRs JEETENDRASINH JORAVARSINH GOHIL VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 254. Legal practitioners should scrutinize this in notary disputes.
These rulings apply mainly to criminal proceedings via FIRs, not general notarization validity or civil challenges. Related cases like testamentary capacity under the Indian Evidence Act focus on proof burdens, not notary procedures SANJEEV DESAI VS STATE NCT OF DELHI - 2016 Supreme(Del) 3382.
The query—notary illegally notarized declaration as testator was unable to speak as tube was inserted in neck—reveals intertwined issues of capacity and procedure. Primarily, the notary was not authorized for criminal proceedings due to lacking a Section 13 complaint, quashing actions JEETENDRASINH JORAVARSINH GOHIL VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 254. Related cases warn against absentee notarizations, reinforcing diligence.
Key takeaways:- Procedural compliance trumps allegations in notary prosecutions.- Physical incapacity demands extra verification steps.- Always consult professionals; laws evolve, and facts matter.
This analysis draws from documented judgments for educational purposes. For personalized guidance, engage a legal expert.
#NotaryLaw, #NotariesAct, #WillNotarization
It is perfectly clear from the evidence of the witness that the testator, unable to speak at all that day. The Notary then sent for Krishnar who was the, Senior Apothecary of the Hospital, to sign as a witness. ... The following circumstances were held to be suspicious in the present case, where it was shown that the testator died within seven hours after the execution of the will in a hospital :-(1) The testator was so ill at the time of execution that he was unable#....
to speak or to move from his body for six or 3even days before he died. ... He suggested that another notary should be sent for, and accordingly another notary was sent for, but was unable to come. The notary then went away, taking the draft with him. The same evening he was sent for by the testator and went to the testator's house with the draft will. ... On the other hand, a testator in extremis was allowed to make a nuncupative will in presence of two witnesses,....
There is no evidence that the will which is placed on record was prepared at the instructions of the testator either by any typist or by an advocate. It is an admitted case that the testator did not go to the court to get the will notarized. Notary public has not been examined in this case. ... Even the testator did not sign in his presence. Without seeing the testator the notary even affixed his rubber stamp on the photograph. ... PW-1/1 he and appellant again went t....
... (b) What circumstances necessitated self attestation of Will (unregistered) by a Notary after the death of Testator. ... (c) The entire evidence of the petitioner has claimed that the Will of the Testator has been duly notarized.” ... Charu, daughter of Testator had travelled from all the way to USA and appeared before the Trial Court to give no objection to the probate of the Will in question and there was no question of doubt qua the so-called variation of signatures on the attested nota....
(b) What circumstances necessitated self attestation of Will (unregistered) by a Notary after the death of Testator. ... Charu, daughter of Testator had travelled from all the way to USA and appeared before the Trial Court to give no objection to the probate of the Will in question and there was no question of doubt qua the so-called variation of signatures on the attested notarized Will which was self-attested/notarized ... It is noted in the impugned order that the explanation of petitioner to the va....
It is an admitted case that the testator did not go to the court to get the will notarized. Notary public has not been examined in this case. ... PW-1/1 he and appellant again went to the court where the will was got notarized from a Notary Public. 19. ... PW-1/1 was notarized by a Notary Public in the absence of the deceased and Man Singh. How did a Notary Public who had never seen or met deceased and Man Singh attest their signa....
It is an admitted case that the testator did not go to the court to get the will notarized. Notary public has not been examined in this case. ... PW-1/1 he and appellant again went to the court where the will was got notarized from a Notary Public. 19. ... PW-1/1 was notarized by a Notary Public in the absence of the deceased and Man Singh. How did a Notary Public who had never seen or met deceased and Man Singh attest their signa....
It is perfectly clear from the evidence of the witness that the testator, unable to speak at all that day. The Notary then sent for Krishnar who was the, Senior Apothecary of the Hospital, to sign as a witness. ... The following circumstances were held to be suspicious in the present case, where it was shown that the testator died within seven hours after the execution of the will in a hospital :-(1) The testator was so ill at the time of execution that he was una....
(1876) 299, the question related to a will attested by a notary and two witnesses, the attestation clause stating that they and the testator all signed in each other's presence. ... No particular instructions appear to have been given as to this acre to Alvis, but it is inserted in the draft will as described by a figure of survey, and it; does not appear that Harry was responsible for it being so inserted. ... , or by some other person in his presence and by his direction, and such signature shall be made or ....
the Testator. ... Will attested, which has been done after the death of the Testator. ... So far as the two only heirs of the Testator are concerned, as per the Will in question, they get assets of the Testator which are in United States of America. 4. ... It was submitted that by way of abundant caution, fourth page of the Will was got signed by the attesting witness in the presence of the Notary to put the Will in question beyond any challenge. ... Judicial notice can be taken of the ....
Since a tube was inserted on his neck, he was unable to speak, but he has not stated so before police. After discharge, police came to his house and he could give statement only after a few days since he was unable to speak. He further deposed that at the time when the Doctor examined him, he knew who had inflicted injury on him. He further deposed that he was in ICU for about 13 or 14 days.
So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the allegations against the applicant are that he was working as a Notary and had notarized a "Will" after the death of testator.
A declaration notarized by notary public was submitted by him on 03.07.2000 as instructed by the accused. When he asked for chitta copy, they gave the chitta. On 06.07.2000, when P.W.2 and his friend Mariappan, went to VAO office and enquired about the certificate, he informed that certificate is ready, but he has spent too much to get it.
Obviously the appellant could not have proved due execution of the documents dated 9.12.2003 as those documents were not executed in his presence. (iv) Also the documents being notarized, the notary public could have been summoned to show the factum with respect to due notarization at a particular serial number of the register of notary but this was also not proved inasmuch as there was no entry of the number of the register of the notary mentioned anywhere in the documentation Ex.OW1/10 to Ex.OW1/14. (v) The next reason given by the first appellate court is that signatures....
What would be the effect of this document would be seen during the course of trial. It was notarized by notary public and signed by the applicant.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
