Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested
Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: [Provided t The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: [Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]
Section 68, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 67 Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-4.pdf 2005-09-29 DATE VERIFIED. CA 5941-5942/2005. Ruma Pal/Lakshmanan. s.68 Evidence Act: a will required to be attested is proved by calling an attesting witness; registration does not dispense with s.68, but the registrar's endorsement plus attesting-witness evidence can satisfy execution and attestation. Exclusion of a claimed heir / lesser share to the wife is not by itself a suspicious circumstance (Uma Devi Nambiar). Succession 63 is quoted for the definition of attestation but the isolated holding is s.68 — map 68 only.
On this section: A will required to be attested is proved under s.68 by calling an attesting witness; registration does not replace s.68, and excluding a claimed heir is not itself a suspicious circumstance (Pentakota).
-
Gopal Swaroop vs Krishna Murari Mangal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The execution of an unprivileged Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act requires satisfaction of four essential elements: (1) testator's signature or mark on the Will or signature by another at testator's direction; (2) signature placement indicating testamentary intent; (3) attestation by two or more witnesses, each having seen the testator sign or having received acknowledgment of the signature; and (4) each witness signing in the testator's presence. Proof of these elements by the clear, unambiguous, and unchallenged testimony of even a single attesting witness, when not contradicted in cross-examination, satisfies the statutory requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The standard of proof is the satisfaction of a prudent mind, not mathematical certainty. When Trial Court and a Single Judge in First Appeal have concurrently found a Will properly executed, a Letters Patent Bench should not reverse such finding except where the finding is demonstrably erroneous, irrational, or perverse and wholly without evidence.
On this section: Proof of execution of documents required by law to be attested. Court analyzed the provision requiring at least one attesting witness examination, and noted exception for registered documents (not applicable to Wills). Applied to determine that examination of DW-2 Vilas Tikhe was necessary and sufficient.
-
S. R. Srinivasa vs S. Padmavathamma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A will alleged to be executed by a testator can only be proved as valid and enforceable if: (1) At least one attesting witness (if alive and capable) is examined to prove its execution in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act; (2) A scribe's signature on a document, without evidence that the scribe signed 'animo attestandi' (with intention to attest), cannot substitute for attesting witness examination; (3) When a will's execution is surrounded by suspicious circumstances (such as vague property description, beneficiary being present during execution and registration, unexplained procedural irregularities, or unreasonable exclusion of heirs), the propounder bears a heightened burden to remove all reasonable doubts; (4) Mere admissions about the existence of a will (without admissions as to its genuineness) do not dispense with the statutory requirement of formal proof; (5) When a female Hindu dies intestate without issue, and the property was inherited by her from her father or mother, the property shall devolve upon the heirs of the father under Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, not upon strangers.
On this section: Applied to establish that at least one attesting witness must be called to prove the execution of a will, if such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence. Court held that failure to examine any attesting witness is a serious defect in proving the will.
-
Babu Singh vs Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act can be invoked only when it is established through proper evidence (sworn testimony, not mere counsel statements) that no attesting witness can be found, and all available court processes under Order 16 Rule 10 CPC to compel attendance have been exhausted. A bare statement made through counsel that a witness has gone abroad, without supporting evidence, without service of summons, and without any attempt to invoke coercive processes, is insufficient to trigger Section 69. The ordinary mode of proof under Section 68 requiring examination of attesting witnesses must be strictly adhered to unless and until the prerequisites for Section 69 are substantively and procedurally satisfied. Handwriting expert evidence must be based on properly proved standard signatures, not on signatures taken from documents whose authenticity is itself in question.
On this section: Mandates proof of due execution of will by attesting witnesses; establishes that execution of will must be attested by at least two witnesses; interpreted to require substantive examination of attesting witnesses
-
Anil Kak vs Kumari Sharada Raje
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a Will refers to appendices containing essential details of testator's disposition and those appendices were not in existence at time of Will execution, were not signed by attesting witnesses, and were brought into existence at a later date, the appendices cannot be incorporated into the Will by reference under Section 64 of the Indian Succession Act. Such a Will is incomplete as it cannot be read or executed without the appendices, and therefore cannot be granted probate. This holds true even if formal compliance with signature requirements exists, when suspicious circumstances surround the execution suggesting executor's involvement in preparation and possession of the document, non-examination of one attesting witness, and conflict of interest. Mere compliance with statutory formalities under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act is insufficient where the court must satisfy its conscience regarding genuine execution of a testamentary document affecting property rights.
On this section: Proof of execution of attested documents - execution must be proved by at least one attesting witness if alive and subject to process of court; Court emphasized that mere formal compliance with this section is insufficient where suspicious circumstances exist
-
Rajendra Prasad vs Mishri Lal (dead) Represented by His Lr. Smt. Savitri Devi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a property is owned by co-owners, any co-owner can maintain a suit for eviction of a tenant without joining other co-owners if the other co-owners do not object. The status of a landlord under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act is determined by who receives or is entitled to receive rent, not by formal proof of title through will. Once a final compromise decree has established ownership, the appellants' locus standi to maintain an eviction suit cannot be questioned solely on the ground that the will basis for that ownership was not formally proved with evidence. A tenant is estopped from denying the landlord status of persons succeeding to the rent-collection rights, particularly after receiving explicit notice identifying them as landlords. Deposits of rent in court under Section 30 of the Act are invalid and do not constitute payment or compliance with the Act when made with knowledge that the actual landlords are demanding the rent elsewhere.
On this section: Requires proof of testator's signature on will. High Court considered this in finding will was not properly proved.
-
Veena Singh(dead) through Lr vs The District Registrar/ Additional Collector (f/r)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The execution of a document under the Indian Registration Act 1908 does not mean merely signing the document. Execution requires that a person has signed the document after having fully understood its contents and consented to its terms. Therefore, a person can admit their signature on a document but still deny its execution if they did not understand the document's contents or did not consent to its terms. The Sub-Registrar must refuse registration when execution is denied under Section 35(3)(a). The Registrar, when conducting an enquiry under Section 74 following an application under Section 73, must determine not only whether the document was signed but also whether the signature was affixed after the executant understood the contents and terms of the document. The Registrar cannot adjudicate on substantive issues of fraud and undue influence, which are matters for competent civil courts. Where serious factual disputes exist regarding fraud, undue influence, and the validity of a transaction, these cannot be resolved in the summary quasi-judicial proceedings before the Registrar and must be adjudicated by a civil court.
On this section: Prescribes requirement for proving execution of documents; proviso states attesting witness need not be called if document is registered unless execution is specifically denied
-
Akkaldevi Prakash vs Eligeti Sangeetha Rani alias Bale Sangeetha Rani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The propounder of a Will must remove all suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. If forensic evidence and witness inconsistencies suggest forgery, registration alone does not validate the document.
On this section: Requirement of examining at least one attesting witness to prove a Will.
-
R.l.kapoor vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a higher court reverses an order of discharge passed by a lower court at the charge-framing stage, it must provide detailed reasoning based on a proper consideration of the material on record. The reversal cannot be based on factually incorrect premises or conclusions without supporting reasons. Furthermore, charges must be framed in accordance with the procedural requirements of Sections 212 and 213 CrPC, containing specific particulars for each accused. If these requirements are not met, the revision petition must be remanded to the lower court for fresh consideration on merits with proper opportunity for all parties to be heard.
On this section: Attesting witness; defines the role and liability of witnesses who attest to documents; attestation only proves execution, not the manner or purpose of preparation
-
Umayamma vs Manoj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a registered document is challenged on grounds of fraud by the executant, the burden lies on the propounder to prove due execution; however, once execution and attestation are proved via credible witnesses, the presumption of validity of a registered instrument prevails unless specific particulars of fraud are pleaded and proved.
On this section: Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.
-
Borra Syam Prakash vs Yallapragada Sitapati
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When execution of a registered mortgage deed is admitted, oral pleas of lack of consideration or third-party liability cannot prevail in the absence of corroborative documentary evidence.
On this section: Necessity of calling attesting witnesses for registered documents.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The Trial Court discussed the evidence threadbare and recorded the following findings: - (i). Both the plaintiffs had pleaded that Arunachalam had executed a will on 16.07.2003 but they failed to prove the said will deed in accordance to the statutory provisions contained in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956. Thus, their claim on the basis of the will was not found to be substantiated; - (ii). The suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the co-owners/co-sharers were not impleaded as defendants; - (iii). The …
-
… It is the submission that the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 had succeeded in establishing its execution in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, by examining two attesting witnesses and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is also the contention that both the Trial Court and the High Court have failed to consider that initially there was a dispute on the entire property belonging to Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar between him, on the one side and his first wife and children through her born to him on …
-
… Mahajan [DW2]. The appellant herself deposed as DW1 in the suit before the trial Court. The trial Court found the Will to have been executed in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act as also Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per the said Will, since the entire estate was to be bequeathed to the appellant, the partition suit was dismissed. The First Appellate Court also affirmed this judgment. 4. The plaintiff had carried the said decision to appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil …
Questions about Section 68
What have the courts held on Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam (29 Sep 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: A will required to be attested is proved under s.68 by calling an attesting witness; registration does not replace s.68, and excluding a claimed heir is not itself a suspicious circumstance (Pentakota). Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 68, section 68 IEA, section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam (29 Sep 2005).
What should I read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 67 (Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 68, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.