Delhi High Court: “Judicial Activism Cannot Override Mandatory Legal Requirements”; Dismisses Probate Appeal for Will Lacking Two Attesting Witnesses

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against the order of the District Judge, South West District, Dwarka Courts, which had rejected a probate petition on the ground that the purported Will was not attested by two witnesses as required under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The High Court emphasized that statutory requirements cannot be ignored in the name of judicial activism. It ruled that the absence of a second attesting witness rendered the Will invalid, and therefore, the probate petition was rightly dismissed.

Facts

• The appellant filed a probate petition before the District Judge, South West District, Dwarka Courts, claiming that his mother had executed a Will dated April 15, 2021, bequeathing all her property solely to him.
• He stated that his mother passed away on April 23, 2021, and he was the sole beneficiary under the alleged Will.
• The respondents, who were the appellant’s siblings, contested the Will, arguing that it was not attested by two witnesses, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• Based on these objections, the trial court framed a preliminary issue to determine whether the document in question could be considered a valid Will.
• After examining the evidence, the trial court held that the Will was invalid due to non-compliance with the attestation requirement and dismissed the probate petition.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Delhi High Court in appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the document dated April 15, 2021, constituted a valid Will under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act?
2. Whether the court could exercise judicial activism to validate a Will that did not fulfill statutory requirements due to the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant’s case was based on two primary contentions:

1. Covid-19 Pandemic and the Impossibility of Following Due Process
   • The appellant argued that his mother passed away during the Covid-19 pandemic, and at that time, strict lockdown restrictions were in place.
   • He contended that it was practically impossible to comply with the requirement of two attesting witnesses due to the restrictions on movement and social contact.
   • As a result, he requested the court to exercise judicial activism and relax the attestation requirement in this case.
2. Single Witness Was a Gazetted Officer
   • The appellant further argued that the solitary witness attesting the Will was a gazetted officer, which should be considered sufficient evidence of authenticity.
   • He urged the court to accept the Will with a single attesting witness and waive the requirement for a second witness.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, who were the appellant’s siblings, opposed the appeal on the following grounds:

1. Failure to Comply with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act
   • The respondents contended that Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, clearly mandates that a Will must be attested by at least two witnesses.
   • They emphasized that the statutory requirement cannot be ignored, irrespective of the circumstances under which the Will was executed.
2. Judicial Activism Cannot Override Legislative Mandates
   • The respondents argued that the Covid-19 pandemic cannot be used as an excuse to override fundamental legal requirements.
   • They stated that judicial activism cannot be a tool to bypass legislative intent, as doing so would compromise the integrity of the law.
3. Risk of Fraudulent Wills
   • They further submitted that allowing probate of a Will attested by only one witness would set a dangerous precedent and increase the risk of fraudulent testamentary documents being accepted.

Analysis of the Law

• Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, explicitly states:
  • A Will must be attested by at least two witnesses.
  • Each witness must have seen the testator sign the Will or affix their thumb mark.
  • Both witnesses must sign the document in the presence of the testator.
• The requirement of two witnesses is a mandatory legal safeguard designed to prevent fraud and ensure the authenticity of Wills.
• The appellant did not dispute this legal provision but argued that judicial discretion should be exercised to exempt his case from this requirement.

Precedent Analysis

The Delhi High Court’s decision aligns with several Supreme Court and High Court rulings, which have consistently emphasized that testamentary laws must be strictly followed.

• Key Precedents:
  • In multiple judgments, courts have refused to grant probate where a Will failed to meet statutory attestation requirements.
  • The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that procedural requirements in probate cases cannot be relaxed under the pretext of equity or judicial activism.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Mandatory Nature of Section 63(c)
   • The High Court noted that the appellant did not challenge the legal position under Section 63(c).
   • Since the statute clearly mandates attestation by two witnesses, the document could not be treated as a valid Will.
2. Judicial Activism Cannot Override Legislative Mandate
   • The High Court strongly rejected the argument that the Covid-19 pandemic justified an exception.
   • It held that judicial activism cannot distort the legislative mandate and that courts must uphold the integrity of the law.
3. Strict Compliance is Essential
   • The court emphasized that laws governing probate and succession must be strictly followed.
   • Since the document lacked attestation by two witnesses, it could not be considered a Will under Indian law.
4. Appellant’s Contentions Were Without Legal Basis
   • The court dismissed the argument that a single gazetted officer’s attestation could substitute for two witnesses.
   • It reaffirmed that no exception could be made to the two-witness requirement.
5. No Infirmity in Trial Court’s Order
   • The High Court found no error in the trial court’s ruling and upheld the decision dismissing the probate petition.

Conclusion

• The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s decision.
• The court ruled that the Will was invalid as it was not attested by two witnesses, making the probate petition non-maintainable.
• It reiterated the principle that a strict interpretation of the law is necessary in testamentary cases.
• The High Court refused to entertain the argument that Covid-19 pandemic restrictions justified non-compliance with legal requirements.

Implications

1. Reinforcement of Testamentary Law
   • The ruling strengthens the principle that Wills must comply strictly with procedural safeguards.
   • Courts are not willing to relax the requirements, even in exceptional circumstances.
2. Clarification on Judicial Activism
   • The judgment establishes that judicial activism has its limits.
   • Courts cannot override clear statutory mandates under the pretext of equity or social justice.
3. Prevention of Fraud
   • By insisting on compliance with Section 63(c), the decision helps prevent fraudulent Wills.
   • It ensures that testamentary documents meet the legal threshold before being admitted to probate.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Directs Minor Student’s Participation in State Kalolsavam for Mohiniyattom, Citing Non-Compliance with Interim Order—”Failure to Comply with Court Orders Cannot Prejudice the Petitioner”