How To Prove A Will As Genuine? Supreme Court Explains Tests

In a significant ruling on the law governing wills, the Supreme Court has explained the principles courts must apply while determining whether a will is genuine. Reiterating settled legal principles, the Court said that although a will is proved like any other document, the law imposes additional safeguards because the maker of the will (the testator) is no longer alive to testify about its execution.

The judgment clarifies the evidentiary burden under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and lays down the questions a court must answer before accepting a will as genuine.

Why Is Proving A Will Different From Other Documents?

Ordinarily, documents are proved by examining the person who executed them. A will stands on a different footing because it comes into operation only after the death of the testator.

Recognising this unique feature, the Supreme Court observed that a certain degree of sanctity is attached to a will. At the same time, courts must carefully scrutinise its execution because the person who allegedly made it is unavailable to confirm its authenticity.

Thus, while a will is proved like any other document, it must satisfy the additional statutory requirements prescribed under the Indian Succession Act.

The Six Requirements To Prove A Will

The Court summarised the legal requirements in six broad principles.

1. A Will Carries A Degree Of Sanctity

Since the proof of a will necessarily arises after the death of the testator, courts approach it with recognition that it represents the deceased person's final wishes. However, this does not lessen the burden of proving its genuineness.

2. The Testator's Signature Must Be Proved

The first requirement is establishing that the signature appearing on the will belongs to the testator.

This has to be proved under Section 67 of the Evidence Act, which deals with proof of signatures and handwriting. Where necessary, courts may rely on expert opinion under Section 45 or the testimony of persons familiar with the handwriting under Section 47.

3. The Will Must Be Properly Attested

Execution of a will alone is insufficient. The will must also be attested in the manner prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.

Under the provision:

• the testator must sign or affix a mark to the will; or
• another person may sign on the testator's behalf, but only under the testator's direction and in his or her presence.

Importantly, the will must be attested by two witnesses.

4. The Testator Must Be Of Sound Mind

A valid will can only be made by a person who possesses testamentary capacity.

Under Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, the testator must be of sound mind at the time of execution. Therefore, the propounder of the will must establish that the testator understood what he or she was doing while making the will.

5. At Least One Attesting Witness Must Testify

Under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, a will ordinarily cannot be proved merely by producing the document before court.

At least one attesting witness must enter the witness box and prove that the will was duly executed in accordance with law.

This requirement distinguishes wills from many other documents.

6. The Court Must Answer Four Fundamental Questions

The Supreme Court said that, ultimately, the court must satisfy the conscience of a prudent person by answering four questions:

Did the testator sign the will?

Did the testator understand its nature?

Did the testator understand the effect of the dispositions made in the will?

Did the testator sign the will knowing what it contained?

The Court clarified that the answers need not attain "mathematical precision." Instead, the evidence should satisfy the standard of a prudent judicial mind.

Suspicious Circumstances Still Require Explanation

Although the Court reiterated the general principles governing proof of wills, the jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court has consistently held that if suspicious circumstances surround the execution of a will, for instance, exclusion of natural heirs, doubtful signatures, or the beneficiary playing a dominant role in its preparation, the propounder bears the burden of removing those suspicions before the court can accept the document as genuine.

These principles were mentioned by the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi in Lakshmi v. Gopi.

The principles, as stated verbatin in the judgment, are :

"What a Court is required to do when it is confronted with the question of genuineness of the Will. It has to be proved like any other document except for additional requirements under ISA. To restate, the Civil Court had refused to accept the Will and the High Court as the First Appellate Court was to decide on both questions of fact and law. The requirements below are in the light of Section 67, 68 of the Evidence Act 187225 and Section(s) 59 and 63 of ISA.

(1) Since the proving of the \Will is necessarily an event after the death of the testator there is a certain level of sanctity that is attached to the same;

(2) If the will has been signed by the testator, the same has to be established according to Section 67 IEA with recourse to Section 45 and 47 thereof, if required;

(3) The will in order for it to be proved to be the last will of testator, has to be attested in accordance with 25 IEA,Section 63 ISA either by signing/affixing his mark or signed by a third party upon his direction and in his presence in which situation not one but two attesting witnesses would be required to be examined;

(4) The testator must be of sound mind within the meaning of Section 59 of ISA and it has to be proved accordingly; (5) At least one attesting witness has to be examined in court to prove its execution;

(6) Three questions need to be asked by the Court and the answer so produced should be to the satisfaction of a prudent mind. Mathematical precision is not to be looked for. They are: (a) has the testator signed the Will?; (b) Did he/she understand the nature? ; and (c) the effect of the dispositions in the Will; and (d) Did he /she put his/her signature on the Will knowing what it contained?

The Court relied on its earlier landmark decisions, including:

H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma 1958 SCC OnLine SC 31;

Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809;

Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) through LRs 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 528