The presumption under Section 90 of The Evidence Act, 1872 is inapplicable when it comes to proof of Wills which have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of The Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of The Evidence Act, 1872 [M.B. Ramesh v. K.M. Veeraje Urs, (2013) 7 SCC 490]. There are often situations when Wills which otherwise may have satisfied requirements of being attested, as provided by law, cannot be proved in terms of said two provisions. Section 69 [Babu Singh v. Ram Sahai, (2008) 14 SCC 754; K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini, (2009) 1 SCC 354; V. Kalyanaswamy v. L. Bakhtavatsalam, Civil Appeal No. 1021-26 of 2013, decided on 17.07.2020] and Section 71 of The Evidence Act, 1872 then come to aid.

In present case, Will was duly executed.

– Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, [Civil Appeal No. 7775 of 2021].

_____

Much more recently in Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 255 this Court noted, where attesting witnesses died or could not be found, propounder of a Will is not helpless as Section 69 of The Evidence Act, 1872 would be applicable.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar, Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad, [Civil Appeal No. 2435 if 2010] decided on 20.11.2023.

_____

It will be useful to refer to Ramachandra Reddy v. Ramulu Ammal, 2024 SCC Online SC 3304 in determining what a ‘consideration’ is or can be qua a ‘settlement deed’. Navneet Lal v. Gokul, [1976] 1 SCC 630 highlighted essential principles in interpreting Wills. P.K. Mohan Ram v. B.N. Ananthachary, (2010) 4 SCC 161 referred to broad tests or characteristics as to what constitutes a Will and what constitutes a ‘settlement’.

– Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan, N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma, [Civil Appeal No. 4312 of 2025] decided on 24.03.2025.