Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Ganesan (Dead) Thr Legal Representatives
Respondent: Kalanjiam & Others
Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ
Date Of Appeal: 2009
Date Of Judgement: Thu Jul 11 2019
The appellant claimed a share in the suit property on the basis that it was joint family property (jointly owned estate). In the trial court, it was held that this property was a self-acquired property (independently acquired estate for which he holds the sole rights over it) of the deceased and that the Will had not been proven to be executed in accordance with the law. Thus, the appellants were held to be entitled to a 1/5th share. This decision was appealed and dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by this judgment, an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court.
The signature of the testator was not challenged. The attesting witnesses stated that the testator (the person who made the Will) came to them individually with his signed Will and read out the contents to them, after which they attested the Will. On reading Section 63(c), the court was of the opinion that there was no express prescription that the testator must sign the Will in the presence of the attesting witnesses or that the testator must necessarily sign in the presence of each other along with the testator. Acknowledgement may be in the form of express words or impliedly (through conduct) or both. Thus, the manner in which the Will was attested was valid.
Section 63(c)
The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
The appellants challenged that the signature of the testator on the Will was not in the presence of the two attesting witnesses. The respondent argued that the witnesses received personal acknowledgment of the signature by the testator himself, which would mean that the Will was executed in accordance with the law. This appeal raised the question of the interpretation of the section in question, i.e., Section 63(c). From a bare reading of the above section, it is clear that it provides alternative methods of acknowledgment, and acknowledgment in any of the ways is sufficient to hold the Will as executed.
The most effective way to shape your future is by taking action today.
Disclaimer: Please note My Legacy Box ("formerly Oiconomos") is not a law company/firm and does not offer legal advisory. Though materials, software, and services are available to use publicly, they cannot substitute legal counsel by legal practitioners. We do not endorse or solicit the work of any legal counselor.