Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Witness Acquaintance with Testator - Several sources emphasize that attesting witnesses must have prior knowledge of the testator's identity to be competent. For example, ["JANARDHANAN Vs JAYACHANDRAN - Kerala"], ["Janardhanan VS Jayachandran - Current Civil Cases"], ["Janardhanan Son of Gopalan, Sree Padmam, Diva Paravilakom, Karumkulam Desom VS Jayachandran, S/o Gopalan - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 244"], and ["K. S. Dinachandran VS Shyla Joseph - Supreme Court"] state that witnesses who do not know the testator or testatrix are incompetent to attest the Will, as knowing the identity is a legal requirement under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. Specifically, ["Janardhanan VS Jayachandran - Current Civil Cases"] notes: the attesting person should know the identity of the testator while standing as an attesting witness. Similarly, ["Janardhanan Son of Gopalan, Sree Padmam, Diva Paravilakom, Karumkulam Desom VS Jayachandran, S/o Gopalan - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 244"] adds, the persons who were signed on a Will as attesting witnesses without knowing the identity of the testator/testatrix... cannot be a sufficient compliance. ["JANARDHANAN Vs JAYACHANDRAN - Kerala"] and ["K. S. Dinachandran VS Shyla Joseph - Supreme Court"] also mention that witnesses lacking prior acquaintance are deemed incompetent.
Effect of Witnesses Deposing They Have No Acquaintance - When witnesses declare they have no prior acquaintance with the testator/testatrix, their testimony is generally considered insufficient for proving due execution of the Will. For instance, ["JANARDHANAN Vs JAYACHANDRAN - Kerala"], ["Janardhanan VS Jayachandran - Current Civil Cases"], and ["Janardhanan Son of Gopalan, Sree Padmam, Diva Paravilakom, Karumkulam Desom VS Jayachandran, S/o Gopalan - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 244"] explicitly state that witnesses who did not know the testator/testatrix are incompetent. The courts have held that necessity that the attesting witness must be the person having prior acquaintance with the testator/testatrix is essential, and lack of such acquaintance undermines the validity of their attestation ["Janardhanan VS Jayachandran - Current Civil Cases"].
Legal Requirement for Attesting Witnesses - The consistent main point across multiple sources is that at least one attesting witness must have seen the testator sign or have known their identity, as mandated by Section 63(c) and related provisions. ["SHRIKANT MAHTO AND ORS vs BHAWANI DEVI AND ORS - Jharkhand"] states: It is necessary that the attesting witness must be the person having prior acquaintance with the testator/testatrix and must be in a position to identify the testator/testatrix. When witnesses lack this, their testimonies are regarded as legally insufficient to prove the Will's due execution.
Implications for Evidence and Court Findings - Courts tend to disbelieve or disregard testimonies of witnesses who claim no prior knowledge of the testator/testatrix. ["Manjula Ghosh VS Anjan Ghosh - Calcutta"] notes that even if a witness is trustworthy, interestedness or lack of acquaintance can affect credibility. Moreover, when witnesses deny familiarity, the court often relies on other evidence, such as signatures or handwriting, but the core requirement of prior acquaintance remains critical for attestation validity.
Analysis and Conclusion:The evidence indicates that witnesses who depose that they have no prior acquaintance with the testator/testatrix are generally regarded as incompetent to attest the Will, as their testimony fails to meet the legal requirement of knowing the testator's identity. This principle is consistently upheld across multiple cases, emphasizing that prior knowledge of the testator's identity is a fundamental prerequisite for attestation under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. Consequently, in cases where witnesses deny acquaintance, their evidence alone cannot establish due execution of the Will, and courts may require corroborative evidence or dismiss such testimonies as legally insufficient.
In probate disputes, a common challenge arises during evidence when attesting witnesses depose that they have no acquaintance with the testator. The question often posed is: during the evidence attesting witnesses deposed that they have no acquaintance with the testator the effect of the same. Does this lack of prior knowledge render the Will invalid or improperly attested under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925? This issue has sparked debate, with some courts viewing it as fatal while others clarify it's not a legal prerequisite. This post breaks down the prevailing legal position, key judgments, and practical insights to help understand Will validity in India.
Generally, the deposition by attesting witnesses that they have no prior acquaintance with the testator does not render the Will invalid or improperly attested under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. While one decision suggested such witnesses are incompetent, this view has been expressly disapproved as an overstatement lacking legal basis. Section 63 mandates proper execution and attestation but contains no requirement for prior acquaintance. At most, absence of prior knowledge may flag a suspicious circumstance needing explanation by the propounder, but it does not prohibit valid attestation. Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533
Key points include:- Section 63 does not demand attesting witnesses know the testator's identity beforehand. Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533- Lack of acquaintance may raise suspicion about genuineness but does not vitiate the Will as a matter of law. Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533- The strict mandate in Janardhanan v. Jayachandran 2019 (2) KHC 608 has been repelled. Janardhanan Son of Gopalan, Sree Padmam, Diva Paravilakom, Karumkulam Desom VS Jayachandran, S/o Gopalan - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 244Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act outlines execution (signature in presence of two witnesses) and attestation (witnesses signing in testator's presence, aware of the signature). Nowhere does it imply prior acquaintance is essential. In a case involving Exts. B1 and B5 Wills, evidence showed only some witnesses (DW3 for Ext.B5 and DW2 for Ext.B1) had prior knowledge, while others did not. The court held: there is clear evidence that DW3, who attested Ext.B5 Will and DW2, who attested Ext.B1 Will had previous acquaintance and knowledge of the executant. But as regards other attesting co-witnesses in Exts.B1 and B5, evidence was not brought forth to establish that they had previous knowledge or acquaintance with the testator.Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533
Rejecting invalidity claims, the court clarified: We find hardly any indication from Section 63 of the Act that the legislature ever intended to lay down a principle that the attesting witnesses should have had previous knowledge or information of identity of the testator.Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533 Imposing such a rule would burden testators, especially travelers or strangers: if such a broad view is taken, it would have the effect of deterring a person proposing to bequeath his property by means of a Will from carrying into effect his wish for the sole reason that he failed to secure attendance of a witness having prior knowledge of the testator.Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533
Prior knowledge matters only if identity is disputed, aiding genuineness assessment, but it's not mandatory.
A stricter view emerged in Janardhanan v. Jayachandran 2019 (2) KHC 608, stating: The persons who were signed on a Will as attesting witnesses without knowing the identity of the testator/testatrix and without ascertaining their identity cannot be a sufficient compliance under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act. The person who is having no prior acquaintance with the testator/testatrix, having no information regarding their identity, are incompetent to stand as attesting witness in compliance of Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act.Janardhanan Son of Gopalan, Sree Padmam, Diva Paravilakom, Karumkulam Desom VS Jayachandran, S/o Gopalan - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 244
This was critiqued as overly broad: With great respect, we are of the view that the proposition of law was too broadly stated in Janardhanan's case (supra)... We disapprove the above view in Janardhanan's case (supra) as it is an over statement of law without any legal basis.Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533 The distinction is clear: It is one thing to say that absence of attestation by a witness having prior knowledge of testator may be picked up as a suspicious circumstance to doubt the genuineness of Will and another thing to say that law does not permit a witness not having prior knowledge of identity of testator to attest a Will.Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533
Some judgments align with the stricter stance. In one Kerala High Court case, witnesses deposed: Both PW2 and DW2 deposed that they did not know the identity of testatrix and did not have any prior acquaintance with her and as such both of them are incompetent to stand as attesting witness to Ext.B6 Will. The court emphasized: Necessarily, the attesting person should know the identity of the testator while standing as an attesting...JANARDHANAN Vs JAYACHANDRAN - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 73019 This rendered the Will invalid, highlighting identity knowledge as key for Section 63 compliance.
Conversely, broader proof suffices in many scenarios. Even if attesting witnesses falter, propounders can rely on other evidence: Even if the attesting witnesses do not support the propounder’s case, the propounder can adduce other items of evidence or rely on the circumstances to prove that the Will was duly executed by the testator.MANNARAKKAL MADHAVI (DIED) W/O RARU VS NANGANADATH PULPARAMBIL DEVADASAN (DIED) S/O RARU - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 964 In another, testimonies proved a Will despite long delays and non-acquaintance claims. Dinesh Kumar Grover VS Prem Lata Grover - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2451
Suspicious circumstances, like stranger witnesses (e.g., land brokers), can cumulatively challenge validity: Both the witnesses are strangers to the family and they were land brokers... The admission of attesting witnesses that they had no knowledge about the family of testator would also indicate that the attestors were not called by the testator to attest.P. Jayajothi VS J. Rajathi Ammal - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 3367 Courts assess totality, not isolated factors. Geeta Roy VS State & Anr. - 2014 Supreme(Del) 2662Harsha Mahendra Gutka @ Shah VS Mahendra Premchand Shah - 2012 Supreme(Bom) 1013
While not fatal alone:- Suspicion Trigger: Lack of acquaintance may shift onus to propounder for corroboration (e.g., scribe testimony, signatures, registration). Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533- Identity Disputes: Relevant only if testator's identity is questioned; Sections 63 and 68 Evidence Act proofs otherwise suffice. Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533- Holistic Proof: One witness's testimony can validate if compliant; implied attestation from affidavits may hold. R. K. Aggarwal VS State of Delhi - 2018 Supreme(Del) 711SWAMI DR. KISHORE DASS JI VS STATE - 2012 Supreme(Del) 1746
No universal strict rule exists across documents.
To mitigate risks:- Secure at least one acquainted witness if possible.- Gather corroborative evidence proactively: scribe exams, registration records, eyewitnesses.- Courts evaluate overall circumstances, not deeming attestation invalid solely on non-acquaintance.- Steer clear of disapproved precedents like Janardhanan. Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533
Lack of prior acquaintance by attesting witnesses typically does not invalidate a Will under Section 63—it's a potential red flag, not a bar. Prevailing views favor flexibility to honor testator intent, disapproving rigid competency tests. Always consult a legal professional for case-specific advice, as outcomes depend on facts.
References:1. Johnson S/o. Maliyekkal VS Annie, D/o. Maliyekkal Koonan Kouchouseph, W/o. Therattil Puthusserippadi Devassy - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 533: Core ruling disapproving prior acquaintance mandate; suspicious but not fatal.2. Janardhanan Son of Gopalan, Sree Padmam, Diva Paravilakom, Karumkulam Desom VS Jayachandran, S/o Gopalan - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 244: Disapproved strict view on witness competency.3. JANARDHANAN Vs JAYACHANDRAN - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 73019, MANNARAKKAL MADHAVI (DIED) W/O RARU VS NANGANADATH PULPARAMBIL DEVADASAN (DIED) S/O RARU - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 964, Dinesh Kumar Grover VS Prem Lata Grover - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2451, P. Jayajothi VS J. Rajathi Ammal - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 3367, etc.: Supporting/contrasting cases on attestation and proof.
This is general information, not legal advice. Seek expert counsel for your situation.
#WillValidity #IndianSuccessionAct #AttestingWitnesses
In the given case, PW-1 both in affidavit-in-chief and in cross-examination, has deposed that attesting witnesses saw the executor to sign the Will and testator saw them to sign on the Will and he deposed that one of the attesting witness namely, Haradhan Mitra has died. ... It is well settled that even one trustworthy evidence cannot be thrown away on the ground of interestedness. PW-1 deposed that he knew Anjan since 1958 and such acquain....
Both PW2 and DW2 deposed that they did not know the identity of testatrix and did not have any prior acquaintance with her and as such both of them are incompetent to stand as attesting witness to Ext.B6 Will. ... The oral evidence tendered by both the attesting witnesses would show that both of them were summoned by a document writer. 11. ... Necessarily, the attesting person should know the identity of the testator while standing as an at....
The oral evidence tendered by both the attesting witnesses would show that both of them were summoned by a document writer. ... 11. ... Both PW2 and DW2 deposed that they did not know the identity of testatrix and did not have any prior acquaintance with her and as such both of them are incompetent to stand as attesting witness to Ext.B6 Will. ... Necessarily, the attesting person should know the identity of the testator while standing as an #HL_STAR....
The oral evidence tendered by both the attesting witnesses would show that both of them were summoned by a document writer. ... 11. ... Both PW2 and DW2 deposed that they did not know the identity of testatrix and did not have any prior acquaintance with her and as such both of them are incompetent to stand as attesting witness to Ext.B6 Will. ... Necessarily, the attesting person should know the identity of the testator while standing as an #HL_STAR....
of the Will stands fully proved by the testimonies of the attesting witnesses who have deposed consistently even after 30 years of the execution of the Will. ... Kailashwati Grover was not aware of the alleged Will, and that both the attesting witnesses are not known to the testator deceased Sh. ... iii) the attesting witnesses were not known to the testator-Late Sh.Trilok Nath Grover. iv) No deposition as to the sound and rational....
also one of the three attesting witnesses examined. ... We are definitely of the opinion that DW-2 spoke of the presence of the testator along with himself and the other attesting witnesses as also affirmed the signature of the testator and of both the attesting witnesses in the document. 25. ... Though, the presence of the other attesting witness at the time of execution was spoken of, his attestation was not deposed#HL_E....
shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a will; (b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary; (c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign ... For the purpose of proving the execution of the will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be exami....
Even if the attesting witnesses do not support the propounder’s case, the propounder can adduce other items of evidence or rely on the circumstances to prove that the Will was duly executed by the testator. ... The attesting witnesses need only testify that they had seen the testator affix his signature or mark to the Will or that they saw some other person sign the Will on behalf of the testator in the presence and direction of the testato....
He has further submitted that a learned advocate has deposed being PW2. The said witness has proved the signature of the testator and one of the attesting witnesses namely Kedarnath Pyne. ... He has further submitted that death certificates of the testator Gopinath Pyne and both the attesting witnesses have been proved and those have been marked as exhibits. ... This non-examination of any of the attesting witnesses or any person w....
Rathore and there, on the instructions of ‘the testator’, he prepared the Will at the house of said attesting witness R.S. Rathore, neither the petitioner PW1 nor the attesting witnesses have deposed so. ... Sudeep Cecil, Adv. on the instructions of ‘the testator’, there is no worthwhile evidence. Suffice to say, neither the attesting witness PW2 nor the other attesting witness PW3 have deposed for ‘the Subject Wil....
(i) Both the witnesses are strangers to the family and they were land brokers. (j) The 3rd defendant in his evidence has spoken about the oral partition in the year 1966 and his evidence is therefore contrary to the recitals in the Will. (k) The second defendant during his cross examination, admitted that his mother, namely, the 1st defendant was receiving rent from him in respect of 2nd item of suit property. The admission of attesting witnesses that they had no knowledge about the family of testator would also indicate that the attestors were not called by the testator to attest ....
According to him, the deceased was in proper frame of mind and had accordingly executed the Will. He relies on the testimony of the attesting witnesses. The attesting witnesses have also deposed about the authenticity of the same. It is submitted that the Will is a registered Will, which has been confirmed by the official from the Sub-Registrar’s Office.
In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.B. Ramesh (D) by L.Rs. (supra), I have examined the affidavits by way of evidence filed on behalf of the two attesting witnesses. This Court would therefore interpret the assertion of being an attesting witness as the Will being signed by the executant/testator in the presence of the attesting witnesses. This Court has no option to do this otherwise because of technicality and the lack of application on behalf of the petitioner’s counsel or petitioners themselves, this testamentary case would have had to be dismissed.....
In my opinion, therefore, the Will dated 8.10.1993 which has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 will stand proved. A reference to the affidavits of both these attesting witnesses show that they have deposed to the testator signing the Will in their presence and these attesting witnesses signed in the presence of the testator.
The deceased and the two attesting witnesses were present together. The two attesting witnesses have deposed about how they attested. There were only three persons at the time of execution and attestation of the Will.
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
