Strict proof of Will execution and attestation required; registration endorsements and secondary evidence cannot replace legally admissible proof.

A Will must be proved by strict compliance with the statutory requirements of execution and attestation, ordinarily through at least one attesting witness who can speak to the testator's signature or thumb impression and the witnesses' own attestation. In this article's analysis, inconsistent witness testimony, an insufficiently proved attesting role, and registration endorsements were held inadequate to establish due execution. Secondary evidence of the Will was also treated as unavailable because the loss of the original was not satisfactorily proved, and registration records proved registration only, not attestation. Suspicious circumstances therefore remained unexplained, and the propounder failed to discharge the burden of proof.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Will was duly proved in accordance with the mandatory requirements of execution and attestation under the law of succession and evidence. (ii) Whether the testimony of the examined witnesses, the registered copy, and the alleged secondary evidence were sufficient to establish due execution and attestation of the Will.

Issue (i): Whether the Will was duly proved in accordance with the mandatory requirements of execution and attestation under the law of succession and evidence.

Analysis: A Will must satisfy the statutory requirements of due execution and attestation, and its execution must ordinarily be proved by at least one attesting witness who can speak to the testator's signature or thumb impression and the witnesses' own attestation. The evidence of the scribe and the other witnesses was found inconsistent on material particulars. One witness did not support execution in the manner required by law, another could not be treated as a true attesting witness on the facts, and the registration endorsement did not by itself establish attestation. The Court further held that the exception under the evidence law dealing with denial or failure to recollect execution could not be invoked because the witness did not fall within that situation.

Conclusion: The Will was not duly proved; the finding was against the propounder and in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the testimony of the examined witnesses, the registered copy, and the alleged secondary evidence were sufficient to establish due execution and attestation of the Will.

Analysis: Secondary evidence of a Will could be relied upon only after satisfactory proof of loss of the original and only to the extent permitted by law. The alleged loss of the original Will was not established with the required certainty. The Xerox copy contained endorsements not found in the certified copy, creating further doubt. The registering officer's evidence was held insufficient because a registering authority acting in discharge of statutory duties does not become an attesting witness, and registration records prove registration only, not attestation. In the background of suspicious circumstances, the propounder had failed to remove the doubts surrounding execution.

Conclusion: The secondary evidence and registration material were insufficient to prove the Will; the finding was against the propounder and in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was unsustainable because the Will had not been proved in the manner required by law, and the surrounding suspicious circumstances remained unexplained.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of a Will requires strict compliance with the statutory mode of execution and attestation, and secondary evidence or registration endorsements cannot replace the need to prove attestation by legally admissible evidence.

---