- Case
- GOPAL KRISHAN v. DAULAT RAM (Supreme Court of India, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Indian Succession Act.
Indian Succession Act, 1925: The judgment extensively discusses Section 63 of the Act, which pertains to the execution of unprivileged Wills. The court analyzes Section 63(c), specifically focusing on the attestation requirements. The court interprets the use of the word "OR" in Section 63(c), stating that it is normally disjunctive and should not be read as "AND" unless discernible legislative intent dictates otherwise. The court emphasizes that if an attesting witness saw the testator affix their mark on the Will, that alone ensures compliance with Section 63(c). The "direction" aspect only comes into play when the attestor witnesses someone else signing the Will. The court also refers to the principles summarized in previous judgments regarding Section 63, including the need to fulfill all formalities, the mandatory attestation by two or more witnesses, and the requirement for attesting witnesses to have seen the testator sign or receive a personal acknowledgment. The court also notes that suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a will must be dispelled by the propounder. The judgment questions whether the third requirement under Section 63 is met, particularly concerning the meaning of "direction of the testator".
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses principles of statutory interpretation, specifically addressing the interpretation of the words "or" and "and" in legal texts. It cites Justice G.P. Singh's treatise, 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation', stating that "or" is normally disjunctive, while "and" is normally conjunctive. The judgment emphasizes that the ordinary, grammatical meaning of statutory words should be given effect unless it leads to ambiguity, uncertainty, or absurdity. The judgment also touches upon the principles related to proving a will, including the need to satisfy the court that the will was executed by the testator and was their last will. It also discusses the test of judicial conscience in cases with suspicious circumstances, requiring consideration of the testator's awareness, state of mind, and free will. The judgment also refers to the principle that suspicious circumstances must be "real, germane and valid" and that the propounder of the will has the duty to dispel such circumstances.
