Will Fails Test of Law Due to Unreliable Witness Testimony Despite No Suspicious Circumstances: Madras High Court holds S.63(c) Succession Act Compliance is Mandatory - 2025-09-01

Will Invalidated as Attesting Witnesses Give Contradictory Evidence, Madras High Court Dismisses Plea for Administration

Chennai: The Madras High Court, in a significant judgment, dismissed a petition for Letters of Administration for a Will, holding that the document was not proven in the manner known to law due to unreliable and contradictory testimonies from the attesting witnesses. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan ruled that even if a Will is deemed genuine and free of suspicious circumstances, it cannot be legally upheld if the mandatory requirements under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, are not met through credible evidence.

The court simultaneously decreed a partition suit in favour of the deceased's grandchildren, granting them a half-share in the property that was the subject of the Will.

Background of the Dispute

The case involved two intertwined legal battles. The first, T.O.S.No. 15 of 2022 , was initiated by M.R. Anusuya, seeking Letters of Administration for a Will dated December 23, 2013, allegedly executed by her late mother, P.N. Vasundara. The Will bequeathed a flat in Villivakkam, Chennai, exclusively to Anusuya, disinheriting the children of her predeceased sister, M.R. Anuradha.

The second suit, Tr.C.S.No. 6 of 2023 , was filed by the grandchildren, R. Akshaya and R. Muraalidaran, along with their father, seeking a partition of the same flat and 30 sovereigns of gold jewellery, claiming their rightful half-share as legal heirs of their mother. Both suits were tried jointly by the High Court.

Arguments from Both Sides

Ms. Anusuya (Propounder of the Will) , represented by Senior Advocate Mr. S. Mukunth, argued that her mother, P.N. Vasundara, executed the Will out of her own free will while in a sound and disposing state of mind. It was contended that since she was taking care of her mother, the bequest was natural. The Will was registered, and both attesting witnesses were examined to prove its validity. The defence's claims of suspicious circumstances, such as the disinheritance of the grandchildren and a past eye surgery of the testatrix, were argued to be insufficient to invalidate the Will.

The Grandchildren , represented by Advocate Mr. M. Aloysius Raja Pragash, vehemently contested the Will's validity. They raised several suspicious circumstances, including: -

The Will incorrectly stated their mother died of illness when she was, in fact, murdered. -

The testatrix had undergone eye surgeries, raising doubts about her ability to read and understand the contents of the Will. -

The identity of the attesting witnesses was not properly established, and they were unknown to the family. -

Crucially, they argued the Will was not proven in accordance with the law, as the attesting witnesses provided contradictory and evasive testimonies.

Court's Analysis: A Tale of Two Findings

The court dissected the case by first examining the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and then scrutinizing the legal proof of its execution.

1. No Suspicious Circumstances Found: Justice Karthikeyan held that the circumstances raised by the defendants were not suspicious enough to invalidate the Will's genuineness.

"The loss of a daughter would affect any mother... There is always a possibility of her living in a state of denial about the fact that her daughter was murdered... I hold that non disclosure about the cause of death would not be so fatal to hold that the Will was not a genuine document."

The court also dismissed the concern about the testatrix's eye surgery, noting it occurred a year before the Will's execution and that she was an educated retired government servant capable of understanding legal documents. The disinheritance of the grandchildren was also not considered a suspicious factor in itself.

2. Failure to Prove the Will as per Law: Despite finding the Will genuine in intent, the court found its legal proof entirely lacking. The judgment hinged on the testimonies of the two attesting witnesses, PW-2 (T. Senthil) and PW-3 (T.R. Raja), which failed to meet the stringent requirements of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

The court highlighted glaring contradictions and evasions in their cross-examinations: -

PW-2 claimed he did not know the other witness (PW-3), did not know the contents of the Will, and could not remember who was present during the signing or where it was signed (at home or the registrar's office). -

PW-3 contradicted his own affidavit, stating in cross-examination that he signed the Will only at the Registrar's office, not at the testatrix's house. He also could not recall who accompanied the elderly testatrix to the office.

The court noted:

"The evidence of PW2 and PW3 extracted above clearly shows that there was no compliance of the stipulations stated in Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925... He [PW-2] is a totally unreliable witness and his evidence has to be discarded."

The judgment emphasized that for a Will to be valid, the attesting witnesses must credibly testify that they saw the testator sign the document and that they signed it in the testator's presence. The witnesses' failure to do so was fatal to the plaintiff's case.

Final Decision and Implications

Based on the failure to legally prove the Will, the court reached the following conclusions: -

T.O.S.No. 15 of 2022 was dismissed , and the request for Letters of Administration was rejected. -

Tr.C.S.No. 6 of 2023 was decreed , granting the grandchildren a preliminary decree for a one-half share in the flat. The claim for gold jewellery was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

This judgment serves as a stark reminder that the propounder of a Will carries a heavy burden not only to dispel suspicious circumstances but also to rigorously prove its execution through clear, consistent, and credible testimony from attesting witnesses, as mandated by law.