Case Title: Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v. Suresh Chand & Anr.
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta delivered the ruling in a dispute over ownership of immovable property. The Plaintiff-Respondent asserted ownership on the basis of an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, receipt, and a registered Will executed by his father in 1996. He alleged that his brother, the Defendant-Appellant Ramesh Chand, was initially permitted to reside as a licensee but subsequently sold a portion of the property to a third party without authority.
Conversely, the Defendant-Appellant claimed that the property had been orally gifted to him in 1973 and that he had been in possession since then. He disputed the validity of the plaintiff’s documents, including the Will, and sought a declaration of ownership in his favour.
The Supreme Court, however, set aside the High Court’s reasoning. Authoring the judgment, Justice Aravind Kumar clarified that Section 68 contains no exception dependent on the nature of the contest or the identity of the opposing party. The Court held that whenever a Will is relied upon in judicial proceedings, the examination of at least one attesting witness is indispensable.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it mandatory to examine at least one attesting witness to a Will, and this statutory requirement cannot be dispensed with merely because the dispute does not involve contesting legal heirs.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reaffirmed the mandatory evidentiary safeguard under Section 68.
