In RFA(OS) 30/2017-DEL HC- Merely writing any document by hand without execution & not complying with legal standards u/s 63 of Indian Succession Act would not render such document final to be considered as Will: Delhi HC Justices Suresh Kumar Kait & Saurabh Banerjee [08-08-2022]

Read Order: NARINDER KUMAR GOVIL v. M K GOVIL & ORS 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, August 10, 2022: In a property dispute, the Delhi High Court has held that the handwritten document which does not bear signature of the so-called Testator or the details/signatures of either of the two witnesses and is an incomplete document which is not final and has never been concluded by the Testator, is not a validly executed Will as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 

“Mere writing a document by hand without execution and without compliance of the prescribed legal standards of Section 63 of the Act does not render it final, as a Will”, asserted  the Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee.

The parties herein were related to Late Mr. N.K. Govila as he was the father of appellant as well as first to third respondents, father-in-law of fourth respondent and grandfather of fifth respondent. Said Late Mr. N.K. Govila died intestate leaving his legal heirs. Thereafter, the appellant and first to fifth respondents acquired share in the property. The first Respondent had instituted a suit for partition of this property and for rendition of accounts against the other respondents and the appellant on the basis of the rent recovered by appellant herein with respect to the second floor of the property. 

The appellant contended that his father Late Mr. N.K. Govila had disowned the first respondent by a Will dated March 15,1999, which though not executed by Late Mr. N.K. Govila but was made by him while he was alive. The Single Judge passed a preliminary decree of partition of property declaring first to third respondents be the rightful owner of 1/5th share each and fourth & fifth respondents to be the rightful owner of 1/5th share together in the said property and after holding. Thus, the appellant filed this appeal challenging the said order.

The Bench was of the opinion that, in the present case, all parties barring appellant had denied the very existence of the Will and further appellant was unable to show and prove that the alleged document was actually a Will. Noticing that there was no Will on record,the Bench opined that the existence of alleged Will itself was shrouded in mystery. 

The document proclaimed as a Will before the Bench was not final and was never concluded by Late Mr. N.K. Govila, the Testator named therein, noticed the Bench. Affirming that mere writing a document by hand without execution and without compliance of the prescribed legal standards of Section 63 will not  render it final as a Will,the Bench held that neither Section 59 nor Section 63 could come to the aid of appellant. 

The said Will being non-est in law, couldnot be read in evidence and thus appellant was barred from placing any reliance upon it and could take any benefit thereof, mentioned the Court. Emphasizing on the aspect that the Appellant had failed to show or prove the Will, the Bench was of the opinion that the same couldnot be considered. The Court was also of the view that the appellant had failed to show that Late Mr. N.K. Govila had ever executed any document, much less the alleged Will during his lifetime, either in favour of appellant or disowning the first respondent.

As such Late Mr. N.K. Govila never conferred any right, title, interest or share upon any of the parties herein and thus the appellant and respondents had rightly acquired their respective share in the property, stated the Bench while dismissing the appeal.