Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cites several precedents that influenced the court's decision:

• Mohinder v. Nagina (1992): This case established that a scribe cannot be considered an attesting witness. The defense in the present case relied on this precedent to argue against the validity of the will.
• Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam (2003): The Supreme Court held that a will cannot be proven solely by verifying the testator's signature. This was used by the defense to challenge the sufficiency of evidence.
• Lila Dhar v. Smt. Badho (1994): This judgment supports the court's authority to accept the validity of a will based on other corroborative evidence when attesting witnesses fail to support the will.
• Pulipati Rajarao v. Gondrala Sithamahalakshmi (2000): The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a deed-writer’s statement could be relied upon to prove a will under specific circumstances.

These precedents collectively reinforced the court's position that alternative evidentiary mechanisms exist to validate a will when traditional attestation is compromised.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court's legal reasoning hinged on several key legal provisions and doctrines:

• Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section allows a will to be proved by other means when attesting witnesses are unavailable. The court applied the doctrine of necessity, asserting that the absence of one witness due to death and the other due to intentional evasion did not invalidate the will.
• Doctrine of Necessity: In situations where strict adherence to procedural requirements impedes justice, the doctrine allows the court to consider alternative evidence to ascertain the truth.
• Reliance on Deed-Writer's Testimony: The testimony of Krishan Chand, the deed-writer, was pivotal. He provided a detailed account of the will’s execution, including understanding the testator's instructions and the presence of the attesting witnesses at the time of signing.
• Presumption of Genuineness: The will was a registered document, leading to a presumption of its authenticity. The court also considered the mutation records and affidavits submitted by other family members, which corroborated the existence and validity of the will.

The court meticulously evaluated the available evidence, balancing the absence of attesting witnesses with the strength of alternative proofs, ultimately concluding that the will was validly executed.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving the validity of wills without attesting witnesses:

• Flexibility in Evidence: It underscores the judiciary's willingness to consider alternative evidence beyond traditional attestation, promoting fairness in situations where procedural rigidities could obstruct justice.
• Strengthening Section 69: The judgment reinforces the applicability of Section 69 of the Evidence Act, encouraging courts to employ the doctrine of necessity judiciously.
• Reliance on Documentary and Testimonial Evidence: It emphasizes the importance of comprehensive documentary records and credible testimonies in substantiating the authenticity of wills.
• Guidance for Practitioners: Legal practitioners can refer to this case as a precedent when arguing the validity of wills lacking attesting witnesses, provided there is sufficient corroborative evidence.

Overall, the judgment provides a balanced approach, ensuring that genuine intentions of the testator are honored even when procedural anomalies arise.

Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872

Section 69 addresses situations where a will cannot be proven by the standard method due to the absence of attesting witnesses. It allows for the proof of the will through alternative means, provided that:

• The attestation of at least one witness is in the handwriting of the witness.
• The signature of the person executing the will (the testator) is also in their handwriting.

This provision is based on the doctrine of necessity, which permits the court to adopt flexible evidentiary standards to ensure justice is served when strict compliance with procedural norms is impractical.

Doctrine of Necessity

The doctrine of necessity allows courts to deviate from established legal procedures when following them would lead to an unjust outcome. In the context of this case, the doctrine enabled the court to accept alternative evidence to validate the will, despite the absence of one attesting witness and the unavailability of the other.

Attesting Witnesses

Attesting witnesses are individuals who observe the testator signing the will and subsequently sign the will themselves to affirm its authenticity. Their role is crucial in ensuring that the will reflects the genuine intent of the testator without any coercion or undue influence.