Gopal Krishan & Others v. Daulat Ram & Others: Supreme Court Restores Validity of Will

COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JDUGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE

 

Gopal Krishan & Others v. Daulat Ram & Others: Supreme Court Restores Validity of Will

 

Clarifies Scope of Section 63(c) of Succession Act

 

Property Transfers Based on Will Upheld

Also Read: Derek A C Lobo & Others v. Ulric M A Lobo (Dead) by Lrs. & Others: Supreme Court Confirms Probate of Mother’s Will

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 19, 2026:

 

In Gopal Krishan & Others v. Daulat Ram & Others (Civil Appeal No. 13192 of 2024, decided on 2 January 2025), the Supreme Court of India resolved a crucial question regarding the execution and attestation of Wills under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sanjay Karol overturned the High Court’s ruling that had invalidated the Will of Sanjhi Ram.

Also Read: Savitri Bai & Another v. Savitri Bai: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Will Over Sale Deed

The dispute arose when the High Court held that the Will was defective because the attesting witness did not explicitly mention that he signed “under the direction of the testator.” The Supreme Court clarified that this requirement applies only in cases where someone else signs on behalf of the testator. Since Sanjhi Ram had personally signed the Will, the absence of such a statement did not affect its validity.

The Court carefully examined the testimony of the attesting witness and found it compliant with the statutory requirements. It emphasized that the essence of Section 63(c) lies in ensuring that the testator signs the Will and that at least two witnesses attest it in his presence. The Bench concluded that these conditions were satisfied, thereby restoring the validity of the Will.

As a result, the property transfers made pursuant to the Will were upheld, and the challenge to its authenticity was dismissed. This ruling provides important clarity on the interpretation of succession law, ensuring that technical misreadings do not invalidate genuine testamentary documents. It also reinforces judicial consistency in protecting the intent of testators when statutory requirements are substantially met.

Also Read: Thangam & Another v. Navamani Ammal: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Registered Will

 

 

For More, Read Here the Summary of the Judgement from the Book:  WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, read below or open page no 436, Chapter 14.1 in the book. (Online book purchase link available here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart

 

Also Read: Meera Devi (D) Thr. Lr. v. Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) Thr. Lrs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction for Rent Default

1.         Facts of the Case:

Sanjhi Ram, owner of ¼ share in agricultural land (10 kanals 1 marla) in Gurdaspur, Punjab, executed a Will dated 07.11.2005 in favour of his nephew Gopal Krishan and died the next day. On the basis of the Will, Gopal Krishan transferred the property to his sons and subsequently sold it to Madhu Sharma and Meena Kumari. The respondents (plaintiffs) filed Civil Suit No.282 of 2006 alleging the Will was forged, fabricated, and that subsequent mutation and sale deeds were illegal. The Trial Court (2011) held the Will suspicious and void; the Lower Appellate Court (2014) reversed, holding the Will genuine; the Punjab and Haryana High Court (2018) again reversed, holding the Will not proved, citing lack of compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. Hence, the appeal before the Supreme Court.

 

2.         Law Points Involved:

Interpretation of “by the direction of the testator” under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, whether the expression requires strict or liberal construction. Determination of whether attesting witness testimony must expressly mention “direction of the testator” when the testator himself affixed the mark.

 

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

-           Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63, 63(c)

4.         Judgments Referred:

(i).        Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, (2023) 09 SC CK 0045, [https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1177443/meena-pradhan-ors-vs-kamla-pradhan-anr/]

 

(ii).       Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2020) 04 SC CK 0030, [https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1033490/shivakumar-ors-vs-sharanabasappa-ors/]

 

(iii).      Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2002) 12 SC CK 0087.

[https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/654452/janki-narayan-bhoir-vs-narayan-namdeo-kadam/]

Also Read: Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh & Others: Supreme Court Rejects Suspicious Will, Restores Equal Shares

 

(iv).     Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika, (2016) 02 SC CK 0149.

[https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/688246/pankajakshi-and-others-appellant-hash-chandrika-and-others-respondent]

 

5.         Obiter Dicta:

The words “by the direction of the testator” in Section 63(c) apply only when another person signs the Will on behalf of the testator. When the testator himself signs or affixes his mark, it is sufficient that the attesting witness saw him sign. There is no necessity for the witness to state that his own signature was affixed “by direction.” The statutory “or” in Section 63(c) is disjunctive and not to be read as “and.”

 

6.         Ratio Decidendi:

Section 63(c) enumerates alternative conditions for attestation: (i) witness sees the testator sign or mark; or (ii) witness sees another sign in the testator’s presence and direction; or (iii) witness receives acknowledgment from testator. The High Court erred by insisting the witness must depose about signing “by direction” even when the testator himself executed the Will. The attesting witness’s testimony that he saw the testator affix his thumb impression in his and another witness’s presence satisfies Section 63(c). The requirement of “direction” arises only when someone else signs for the testator.

 

7.         Final Ruling:

Appeal allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 26.03.2018 set aside. The Lower Appellate Court’s decision restored. The Will of Sanjhi Ram held duly proved; consequent sale deeds declared valid.

 

Also Read: Lilian Coelho & Others v. Myra Philomena Coalho: Supreme Court Restores Scrutiny of Suspicious Wills

8.         Gist (Dispute & Final Decision):

The dispute concerned whether the Will of Sanjhi Ram was duly executed and attested under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. The High Court had invalidated the Will for lack of explicit mention of “direction of