Gopal Krishan v. Daulat Ram
Background
A childless man, Sanjhi Ram, lived with his nephew Gopal Krishan and executed a Will in Gopal Krishan's favour the day before he died in 1990. Other relatives sued, claiming the Will was forged, and the trial court agreed it was suspicious. The first appellate court upheld the Will, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed again, holding it was not proved because the attesting witness never said he saw the thumb impression put "by the direction of the testator": a phrase used in Section 63(c) of the Succession Act.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Section 63(c) lists three alternative ways attestation can be proved, joined by the word "or": a witness only needs to have seen the testator himself sign or affix his mark, OR seen someone else sign at the testator's direction, OR received a personal acknowledgment from the testator. Here, the attesting witness clearly testified he saw Sanjhi Ram himself put his thumb mark on the Will, which independently satisfied the first alternative; the "direction of the testator" requirement only matters when someone else signs on the testator's behalf. The High Court had wrongly treated the requirements as cumulative rather than alternative, so the Will was held valid and the appeal was allowed.
Lesson Learnt
To prove a Will's execution, a witness generally only needs to satisfy one of the three routes set out in Section 63(c) of the Succession Act. Courts should not read the law's "or" as if it were "and" and demand proof of every alternative at once.