Madras High Court· 30 July 2026
Is Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 substantially satisfied where the attestor deposes that the other attestor also signed the Will?
G.Ravichandran v. K.Arulmozhi
S.A.Nos.609 of 2023 · S.A.Nos.609 of 2023
Coram: Justice S.Sounthar
Answer
Yes. Where the attestor identifies his signature, deposes that the testatrix dictated and signed the Will in his presence, that he attested it at her request and that the other attestor also signed the Will, the ingredients of Section 63(c) are substantially satisfied even though he has not specifically stated that he saw the other attestor signing, particularly where there is no specific cross examination on that attestation.
Headnote
Indian Succession Act, 1925 — s.63(c) — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.15(2)(a) — Proof of Will — Attestation — Adverse possession —
Indian Succession Act, 1925 — s.63(c) — Proof of Will — Attestor must identify his signature —
Held: The attestor of a testamentary document must identify his signature in the Will and depose about the attestation. Where the original Will lay in the custody of the Court and was never shown to the attestor in the witness box, a general statement in his proof affidavit does not prove the Will. (¶17, 18)
Indian Succession Act, 1925 — s.63(c) — Attestation — Deposition that the other attestor also signed —
Held further: Where the attestor identifies his signature, deposes that the testatrix signed in his presence and that the other attestor also signed the Will, the ingredients of Section 63(c) are substantially satisfied, more so when there is no specific cross examination on that attestation. (¶21)
Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Genuineness of Will — Inclusion of property already sold by testatrix —
Held further: Inadvertent inclusion of property already sold by the testatrix does not by itself raise suspicious circumstances impeaching the genuineness of the entire Will; the beneficiary simply acquires no title over the property so sold. (¶23)
Adverse possession — Plea must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved —
Held further: A plea of adverse possession shall be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by cogent evidence, and interested testimony alone cannot establish hostile possession for more than the statutory period. Second appeals dismissed. (¶30, 32, 33)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 21A close scrutiny of the evidence would indicate that D.W.2 not only has seen Rajamani Ammal signing the Will, but he also saw other attestor signing the Will. Even though he has not specifically stated that he had seen other attestors signing the Will, he deposed that the other attestor also signed the Will. [vd;Dld; ghyfpU\;zd; vd;gtUk; rhl;rp ifnahg;gk; ,l;lhh;]. Therefore, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that D.W.2 has seen other attestor Balakrishnan signing the Will. He also deposed that he singed the Will in the presence of the attestor. In view of the same, this Court comes to the conclusion that the ingredients of Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 is substantially satisfied in the case on hand. D.W.2 also withstood the cross examination. He denied the S.A.Nos.609 of 2023 & 55 of 2025 suggestion that the did not attest the Will and the same was not singed by Rajamani Ammal. In his cross examination also D.W.2 clearly deposed that he singed the Will in the presence of testatrix and she [Rajamani Ammal] put her signature in his presence. D.W.2 in his chief examination clearly deposed that other attestor Balakrishnan also attested the Will along with him and there is no specific cross examination of D.W.2 with regard to the attestation by other attestor. In these circumstances, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that ingredients of Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act,1925 has not been satisfied by the evidence of D.W.2 is not acceptable to this Court and the same is rejected.
Paragraph 26The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam reported in (2003) 2 SCC 91 and also another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meena Pradhan and Others vs. Kamla Pradhan and Another reported in (2023) 9 SCC 734 for the proposition that the attesting witness should have seen the other attestor signing the Will. In the case on hand, this Court already discussed the evidence of D.W.2 and found that in his evidence, he deposed about the attestation of Will by other attestor and hence, the ingredients of Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 have been subsequently complied with. Hence, the said decisions are not helpful to advance the case of the appellant.
Acts & Sections
s.63(c) Indian Succession Act, 1925s.15(2)(a) Hindu Succession Act, 1956s.68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of G.Ravichandran v. K.Arulmozhi — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →