Supreme Court rules S.69 Evidence Act can prove will only if S.68 attestation impossible

This case involves a family succession and partition dispute between the heirs of the first wife and the heirs of the second wife of the original property owner, centered on the validity and proof of a registered Will executed by the third wife (Arukkaniammal). The core issue is whether the Will is validly proved under the Evidence Act, which determines the devolution of the A-schedule agricultural property.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Pazhanathal (Dead) through LRS. & Ors (heirs of the first wife, Mottaiammal). Respondents: Alamathal (Dead) through LRS. & Ors (heirs of the second wife, Pappammal). Bench: Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

What the court decided

• The Court is examining whether the Will (Ex.B-13) dated 15.12.1976 is proved valid.
• The Court must distinguish between testamentary power, due execution, attestation, and the statutory mode of proof under Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act.
• The Court is assessing the obligation of the propounders to remove suspicious circumstances regarding the Will.
• The validity of the Will is identified as the central issue, with partition, possession, and injunction being consequential matters.

Also in the document

• The dispute involves two concurrent proceedings: a partition suit (O.S. No. 665 of 1985) and a suit for permanent injunction (O.S. No. 1344 of 1990).
• The High Court had previously allowed the Respondents' appeals and decreed their suit for permanent injunction, setting aside the Trial Court's partition decree in favor of the Appellants.
• The Will was executed by Arukkaniammal, who is described as illiterate and issueless, in favor of the four sons of Alamathal.
• The Appellants claim the property should devolve under Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if the Will is not proved.