Ramesh Chand (D) Through LRs v. Suresh Chand and Another, 2025
The Supreme Court clarified and reinforced a crucial aspect of evidentiary law: the strict compliance required under Section 68 for proving Wills.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
6 September 2025
Judges
Justice Aravind Kumar & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The Plaintiff-Respondent claimed title to a property via multiple documents, including an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA), affidavit, receipt, and a registered Will executed by his father in 1996.
-
He alleged that his brother (Appellant-Ramesh Chand) was initially occupying the property as a licensee, but illegally sold part of it to a third party (Respondent No. 2).
-
The Appellant contested the claim, arguing that he had received the property through an oral gift in 1973 and had been in possession since then.
-
The validity of the Will was a central issue in the case.
Issues
-
Whether the non-examination of an attesting witness to a Will renders the Will inadmissible in evidence under Section 68 of the Evidence Act?
-
Whether the requirement under Section 68 can be dispensed with merely because the dispute is not between legal heirs?
-
Whether an Agreement to Sell and GPA can confer title in immovable property?
-
Whether the oral gift claimed by the Appellant could be accepted over documentary evidence produced by the Respondent?
Held
-
The Mandatory requirement under Section 68 of the Evidence Act must be followed: At least one attesting witness to a Will must be examined if the Will is used in a legal proceeding.
-
This requirement cannot be relaxed based on the nature of the parties or type of dispute.
-
Will not proved according to law if no attesting witness is examined – the Respondent’s claim over property fails without valid proof of the Will.
-
Also reiterated: GPA and Agreement to Sell are not instruments of title.
Analysis
-
The Supreme Court clarified and reinforced a crucial aspect of evidentiary law: the strict compliance required under Section 68 for proving Wills.
-
It corrected the High Court’s erroneous interpretation, which could have created a dangerous precedent by suggesting that formal proof requirements can be diluted depending on the nature of the dispute.
-
The ruling strengthens procedural rigor in property disputes and prevents misuse of Wills not duly proved.
-
The reiteration regarding GPA and Agreement to Sell echoes the landmark judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, where the Court held that title cannot pass without a registered sale deed.
-
Overall, this decision contributes to the legal certainty and evidentiary integrity required in property transactions and succession matters.