Testamentary Capacity (Soundness of Mind) (Section 59 ISA)
Legal Objection: The will is void if the testator was not of “sound disposing mind” when executing it. Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act disqualifies any person of unsound mind, or intoxicated person unaware of their actions, from making a valid will. An objector will therefore probe the testator’s mental state to show he could not understand the nature or effect of the will.
QUESTIONS :
Q1. At the time of execution of this will, was the testator in good health?
Q2. Did the testator suffer from any mental illness (e.g. dementia, mental disorder, severe depression)?
Q3. Was the testator under the influence of any strong medication or alcohol that could affect his understanding?
Q4. Did the testator appear to fully understand the extent of his property?
Q5. Did the testator discuss why he was excluding some natural heirs from inheritance?
Q6. “Who explained the contents of this document to the testator?
Q7. Did he seem to follow the explanation?
Q.8. Did the testator ever ask questions or express confusion about the will’s provisions?
Q.9. “Had the testator ever been declared of unsound mind or treated by doctors for mental incapacity?
Q.10. Did any family members note unusual behavior, forgetfulness, or delusions when the will was signed?
Reasoning: Persons of unsound mind (or intoxicated) cannot form a valid will. If a witness describes confusion, memory loss or heavy medication, it indicates lack of capacity. The Supreme Court requires proof that the testator understood the nature of the act and the extent of his property. Highlighting illness or incapacitation undermines that understanding.
Reasoning: The principle of knowledge and approval demands the testator comprehend the will. If the testator needed someone else to explain or appeared confused, it suggests he lacked awareness of the will’s effect. In H. V. Iyengar v. Thimmajamma, the court held a will invalid if the testator did not understand its nature and effect. Questions about who explained the will and whether the testator understood it attack testamentary capacity.
Reasoning: Evidence of formal diagnoses or eyewitness accounts of irrational behavior supports incapacity. The cross-examination can reveal any lapses in lucidity. Since law presumes sound mind unless proved otherwise, showing medical or familial concern over the testator’s mental condition puts capacity in issue.
Undue Influence / Coercion (Section 61 ISA)
Legal Objection: Section 61 voids any will made by fraud, coercion or undue influence that overbears the testator’s free agency. An objector will aim to show that the testator was pressured or manipulated (e.g. by a beneficiary) into making the will. This often involves identifying suspicious circumstances such as unnatural bequests or beneficiary involvement, which shift the burden onto the propounder to dispel doubt.
Q11. Did any beneficiary or close relative accompany him to the lawyer’s office or participate in drafting the will?
Q12. Who was present when the testator executed this will?
Q13. Did any of the beneficiaries arrange for the drafting or execution of the will?
Q14. Did anyone promise him money, care or threaten harm if he did not sign?
Q15. Did the testator express any reluctance, fear or hesitation when executing the will?
Q16. Did anyone insist or pressurize the testator to sign the document?
Q17. Why does this will leave out close family members without explanation?
Q18. Why does the will leave a disproportionate or ‘unnatural’ gift (e.g. excluding immediate family without explanation)?
Q19. Did the testator ever discuss a rationale for this decision, or was he upset when those persons were omitted?
Reasoning: Undue influence often occurs when the beneficiary takes an active role. If a major beneficiary was present or instrumental in the will’s preparation, it raises suspicion of overreaching. The Supreme Court in H. V. Iyengar v. Thimmajamma noted that a propounder’s prominent role and substantial benefit under the will are “suspicious circumstances” that the propounder must explain. Cross-examination on who was present or who prepared the will targets this.
Reasoning: Coercion is a form of undue influence. Evidence of threats or promises can prove free will was overcome. By asking whether the testator appeared frightened or was induced by promises, the objector probes for signs the will was not voluntary. Section 61 explicitly invalidates wills made by “importunity which takes away the free agency of the testator”. Corroborating any suggestion of compulsion undermines validity.
Reasoning: Unnatural dispositions (e.g. disinheriting a close heir in favor of a stranger) are a classic red flag of undue influence. As explained in Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose, suspicious circumstances include unnatural provisions in the will given the testator’s situation. If cross-examination shows the testator could not logically justify the disproportionate bequest, it suggests someone imposed the will. This forces the court to scrutinize whether the testator’s free will was undermined.
- Fraud / Misrepresentation
Legal Objection: A will obtained by fraud – such as misrepresentation of its contents – is void under Sections 61–62 ISA. The objector will attempt to show the testator was deceived about what he was signing.
Q20. Was the will explained to the testator in his own language?
Q21. Did the testator personally give the instructions for this will?
Q22. Could the testator read the contents himself, or was he dependent on others to read it out?
Q23. Did the testator ever believe he was signing some document other than a will?
Q24. Who had custody of the will after its execution?
Q25. Was the will ever represented to the testator as something else (for example, a gift or a different agreement)?
Q26. Did the testator believe this was a will of his own free accord?
Q27. Who explained the will’s contents to the testator, and were they interested parties?
Q28. Did you ever see anyone adding or removing pages after the testator left the room?
Reasoning: If the testator was misled about the nature or effect of the document, his consent is vitiated. Section 62 (Indian Succession Act) covers wills induced by false statements. Cross-examining on whether the testator was told false information about the document exposes any fraud.
For instance, asking if the testator thought he was signing a gift deed checks whether he was deceived. Any admission of misunderstanding shows fraud in the procurement.
Reasoning: A beneficiary explaining the will creates an obvious conflict of interest. If a witness saw others alter the document or heard the testator was told false things, it supports fraud. The goal is to impeach the authenticity by demonstrating that the testator’s will was secured through deceit, making the document void.
- Forgery (Signature / Document Authenticity)
Legal Objection: A forged will (or forged testator’s signature/mark) has no legal effect. If there is evidence that the signature or parts of the will are not genuine, the objector will highlight this.
Q29. Did you personally see the testator sign every page of the will?
Q30. Are all signatures or thumb impressions in the same ink and handwriting?
Q31. Did both attesting witnesses sign in the presence of the testator?
Q32. Why do the signatures on some pages look different or appear in different ink?
Q33. Was the will signed in one sitting, or on multiple occasions?
Q34. Were the two attesting witnesses present at the same time when the testator signed? Did each witness sign immediately after seeing the testator’s signature? If not, why not?
Q35. Why do some pages of the will bear signatures in different ink or pen?
Q36. Are there any blank or unattested portions when the will was signed?
Reasoning: Under Section 63 ISA, the testator must sign (or mark) the will himself or direct another to do so in his presence. If the attesting witness cannot confirm they saw the testator sign, it suggests forgery or improper execution. Cross-examination forcing the witness to admit uncertainty about the signature raises doubt as to authenticity. The onus to prove the signature is genuine then shifts heavily onto the propounder.
Reasoning: Proper attestation requires that each witness see the act of signing and then sign themselves. Discrepancies here (one witness signing without seeing the testator) imply pages could have been signed afterward. This is a classic sign of forgery or insertion. Highlighting any lapse in the witnessing process draws attention to possible fraud.
Reasoning: Inconsistencies in ink, pen color, or blank spaces at the time of execution are strong indicators of tampering. In Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, unexplained discrepancies (different pens, missing signatures on pages) were held to render the will not genuine. By eliciting answers on these matters, cross-examination can establish that the will appears to have been pieced together, suggesting forgery or later alteration.
- Procedural Defects (Execution / Attestation) (Section 63 ISA, Section 68 Evidence Act)
Legal Objection: Even if the contents are genuine, failure to comply with statutory formalities voids the will. Section 63 ISA prescribes strict execution and attestation requirements, and Section 68 Evidence Act requires proof of execution by an attesting witness. The objector should question any deviation from these formalities.
Q37. Were at least two witnesses present at the same time when the testator signed?
Q38. Did the testator acknowledge the document as his “last will and testament” before both witnesses?
Q39. Did the testator acknowledge this document as his last will and testament before signing?
Q40. Did each witness sign the will immediately after seeing the testator sign?
Q41. Did each witness actually see the testator’s signature?
Q42. Why is only one attesting witness produced in this court when the law requires two?
Q43. Is the attestation clause properly filled with date, place, and signatures?
Q44. Is the will signed or marked by the testator as required?
Q45. If the testator could not sign, was his mark properly affixed by someone in his presence?”
Q46. Did each witness sign the will in the presence of the testator and the other witness?
Q47. Is the attestation clause correctly dated and complete?
Q48. Are there any blank spaces or unfilled sections on the will at the time of signing?
Reasoning: Section 63(1) mandates the testator’s signature or mark on the will. If he did not sign (and there is no valid mark), the will fails for lack of execution. Establishing that the testator never personally executed the document is a direct procedural defect.
Reasoning: Sec. 63(2) requires two or more witnesses, each of whom must see the act of signing. If one witness is missing or did not actually observe the signature, the will is not duly attested. Moreover, under Evidence Act Section 68, if an attesting witness is alive and available, probate cannot proceed without calling at least one to testify. Questioning the absence or credibility of witnesses exposes non-compliance
Reasoning: The formality requires each witness sign in the testator’s presence (they need not all be together, but each must see the signing). Any deviation (e.g., a witness signing alone or after leaving the room) breaches the procedure. Similarly, a missing or incorrect date/place in the attestation can render the execution invalid.
The objector can use these questions to highlight non-compliance with Section 63.
Reasoning: Blank spaces could have been later filled in, and a lack of clear acknowledgment undermines certainty. Courts insist on strict adherence to statutory formalities. If the witnesses admit to any blanks or if the testator’s assent was not clearly given, the will’s procedural validity is doubtful. Any such admissions can justify a finding that due execution was not proved
VI. Suspicious Circumstances
Q49. Why was the will executed so close to the testator’s death?
Q50. Why does the will make an unnatural distribution of property, favoring one person disproportionately?
Q51. Did the main beneficiary play an active role in preparing, typing, or keeping the will?
Q52. Why is the handwriting/typing style of this will different from the testator’s usual documents?
Q53. Why were no independent witnesses from the family or neighborhood called to attest this will?
Supporting Judgments (Supra):
- H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. Thimmajamma (AIR 1959 SC 443) – burden on propounder to explain suspicious circumstances.
- Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose (AIR 1982 SC 133) – unnatural exclusion of heirs creates suspicion.
Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (AIR 1964 SC 529) – strict proof of due execution is essential.
probatecrossbydefendent
