Clarifying the ‘Direction of the Testator’ Under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors. (2025 INSC 18), decided on January 2, 2025, addresses pivotal issues regarding the execution and attestation of Wills under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The case arose from a property dispute concerning the validity of a Will allegedly executed by one Sanjhi Ram in favor of his nephew, Gopal Krishan.

The parties to the dispute were:

• Appellants: Gopal Krishan & Others, who claimed title to the property through the disputed Will and further sale deeds.
• Respondents: Daulat Ram & Others, who sought to challenge the Will as “forged and fabricated” and the subsequent mutation of the property as “illegal” and “void.”

In a series of judicial determinations, the Trial Court initially struck down the Will, the First Appellate Court upheld it, and the High Court reversed the First Appellate Court’s judgment. Ultimately, the Supreme Court weighed in to resolve whether the attestation requirements under Section 63(c) had been satisfied—particularly focusing on what the phrase “by the direction of the testator” means, and whether it must be interpreted strictly or liberally.

2. Summary of the Judgment

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the findings of the First Appellate Court. The Court clarified that the disjunctive “or” in Section 63(c) must be properly construed: a witness who has actually seen the testator affix his mark fulfills the statutory requirement even if there is no explicit evidence of “direction of the testator” regarding a third party signing on his behalf. The Court reaffirmed that the Will in question was valid, and the subsequent sale deeds executed by the beneficiary, Gopal Krishan, were also upheld.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

A number of judicial authorities were discussed to resolve the attestation standard:

• Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam (2003) 2 SCC 91: This Supreme Court case specifies the method of proving a Will and the requirement for at least one attesting witness to testify. The High Court had relied on this case to underscore the technicalities of witnessing the testator’s signature or mark.
• Kanwaljit Kaur v. Joginder Singh Badwal (deceased through LRs) (RSA No.5252 of 2012): The High Court referred to this decision to assert that the attesting witness must specifically depose about the “direction of the testator.” The Supreme Court clarified that this approach overlooks the disjunctive language used in Section 63(c).
• Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 157: Cited for its guidance on appellate powers and substantial questions of law, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision influenced the High Court’s procedural steps when entertaining second appeals.
• Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr. (2023) 9 SCC 734 and Shivakumar & Ors. v. Sharanabasappa & Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 277: Both cases were invoked for the procedural and substantive benchmarks in proving a Will, including the significance of removing “suspicious circumstances” and ensuring that at least one attesting witness is convincingly examined in court.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s primary legal analysis hinges on the text of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. That section sets out five distinct situations in which a Will may be properly attested by two or more witnesses. Crucially, the Court emphasized that the word “or” in the statutory text is disjunctive: seeing the testator sign or affix a thumb mark is one independent way to satisfy the mortmain attestation requirements. Requiring the phrase “by the direction of the testator” in every instance conflates the different scenarios spelled out by the legislature.

Therefore, because the testifying witness (DW-1) in this case deposed that he personally saw the testator sign the Will, the standard in Section 63(c) was met. Invoking “direction of the testator” only becomes relevant if someone else physically signs on behalf of the testator in his presence. Since that was not the scenario here, the usurpation of an additional requirement by the High Court “reads ‘and’ where the legislature has stated ‘or,’” effectively imposing a stricter requirement than the statute demands.

3.3 Impact

By clarifying the meaning of “by the direction of the testator,” the Supreme Court has:

• Recalibrated the standard of proof for Wills under Section 63(c), reaffirming that an attesting witness need only confirm that he or she saw the testator sign or that the testator acknowledged his signature before the witness. “Direction of the testator” is an alternative method of proving a Will’s execution when a third person signs on behalf of a testator.
• Reinforced a context-specific approach to suspicious circumstances in Will disputes, emphasizing that courts should not impose additional evidentiary burdens that contradict the plain meaning of legislative provisions.
• Provided clarity for future Will challenges, helping courts and litigants understand when and how to question the authenticity of a Will — specifically, how to handle the “or” in Section 63(c) and what exactly a witness must attest.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Testator: The person who creates or executes the Will. In this case, Sanjhi Ram was the testator.

Attestation: The formal process by which witnesses confirm that the Will was signed by the testator (or by a lawful substitute in the testator’s presence) and that each witness signs in the presence of the testator. Section 63(c) lays out distinct scenarios of how valid attestation can occur.

“Direction of the Testator”: A phrase in Section 63(c) indicating that if someone else puts the signature on behalf of the testator, it must be done in the testator’s presence and with his specific directive. Some courts have conflated this requirement in cases where the testator himself signs, but the Supreme Court clarified that this phrase is not mandatory in all situations.

Or vs. And: The ruling highlights the importance of recognizing that “or” is disjunctive, meaning each clause stands alone. If the statutory language used “and,” it would unify clauses together, demanding that all conditions be met collectively.

5. Conclusion

In Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors. (2025 INSC 18), the Supreme Court offers important guidance on the interplay between legislative language and proof requirements for Wills. By setting aside the High Court’s approach, the Court underscores that a Will is satisfactorily attested if at least one attesting witness firmly establishes that the testator personally signed or acknowledged the document in his presence. The ruling disentangles the mandatory requirement of testator “direction” from situations in which it was never statutorily foreseen. This clarification will aid lower courts and litigants in ensuring that the correct standard is applied and that valid Wills are not invalidated by an overly stringent reading of the law.

Overall, this decision bolsters certainty in testamentary dispositions, aligning judicial practice across courts with the unambiguous statutory language of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. By restoring the First Appellate Court’s decision, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Will’s validity and the ensuing transfers of property, ensuring finality and reinforcing the testator’s freedom to dispose of his property as he deems fit under the properly attested Will.