DHAMAN Vs. JIYA LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of law does arise in the present Regular Second Appeal. Before, however, the question as such may be formulated, it would be worthwhile to reproduce order dated 3-5-1984 passed by this Court when the matter came up for motion hearing. Same runs thus :-

(2.) It is on the production of certified copy of the Will, wherein, only one witness, namely, Hargu Lal was shown to have attested the Will at the time of its execution and when the Will was placed on record that notice of motion was issued for 28-8-1984 as would be apparent from the order recorded on the said date and it is after hearing learned counsel representing the parties that the matter was admitted on 11 -9-1984.

(3.) Question of law that arises in the present case is as to whether a Will, which is attested by only one witness, in contrast to the provisions of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which enjoins that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will, would be an invalid and inadmissible document.