Execution of unprivileged wills
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 deals with execution of unprivileged wills. Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:-- (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by The Act came into force on 30 Sep 1925.
Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 1[or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:--
(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will.
(c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
Section 63, The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Act 39 of 1925).
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.
-
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: Core provision defining execution requirements for unprivileged Wills. The court exhaustively analyzed four key elements: (1) testator signing or marking the Will, (2) appropriate placement of signature, (3) attestation by two or more witnesses who saw testator sign or received acknowledgment, (4) each witness signing in testator's presence. Court held all four elements were satisfied.
-
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: Requirements for execution of unprivileged Will - need for proper execution by testator and attestation by witnesses
-
Shakti Yezdani vs Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A nominee of shares or securities does not obtain absolute beneficial ownership of the assets upon the owner's death; such securities form part of the estate of the deceased and are subject to the general laws of succession.
On this section: Governs the rules for execution of Wills and vesting of estates in executors/administrators.
-
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: Specifies procedural requirements for proving wills. High Court dismissed suit on ground will was not formally proved under this section. Supreme Court held this not essential given compromise decree.
-
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: Establishes requirements for valid execution of wills; must be complied with in probate proceedings for proving a will
-
Badrilal vs Suresh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Will can be revoked only in the modes prescribed by Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: by execution of another Will or codicil, by a writing executed in the manner required for a Will declaring intention to revoke, or by burning, tearing, or destroying the Will by the testator or by someone in his presence and direction. An agreement that is not executed as a Will, lacks proper attestation, and does not comply with these statutory requirements cannot revoke a Will. A beneficiary under a valid Will can sell only to the extent of her bequest; the sale is valid only to that extent, and partition is necessary for full transfer of inherited property.
On this section: Prescribes that an unprivileged Will must be signed by the testator and attested by two or more witnesses. The Court referenced this section to establish that Mangilal's thumb impression on the agreement, appearing only on the margin of the third page without attestation by two witnesses, did not satisfy the requirements for valid execution of a document intended to revoke a Will.
-
Sunita Shivdasani v. Geeta Gidwani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2007-02-08 DATE VERIFIED (Mukundakam Sharma CJ & Sanjiv Khanna J.). Hindu cannot make oral/nuncupative will after 1.1.1927; Succession Act s.63 requires writing and attestation. Map Succession 63.
On this section: s.63 writing/attestation — no oral/nuncupative Hindu will after 1.1.1927.
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.
Questions about Section 63
What have the courts held on Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act?
Gopal Swaroop vs Krishna Murari Mangal (25 Nov 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Core provision defining execution requirements for unprivileged Wills. The court exhaustively analyzed four key elements: (1) testator signing or marking the Will, (2) appropriate placement of signature, (3) attestation by two or more witnesses who saw testator sign or received acknowledgment, (4) each witness signing in testator's presence. Court held all four elements were satisfied. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 63 of the Indian Succession 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: Succession Act 63, section 63 Succession Act, section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. People searching for it also type indian succession act 63 c and indian succession act section 63c. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Gopal Swaroop vs Krishna Murari Mangal (25 Nov 2010).
When did Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act come into force?
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, cited as Succession Act 63, came into force on 30 Sep 1925, having been enacted on 30 Sep 1925. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 120. Date of vesting when legacy contingent upon specified uncertain event712 words
- 111. Survivorship in case of bequest to described class652 words
- 142. Specific legacy defined646 words
- 101. Rules of construction where will purports to make two bequests to same person620 words
- 113. Bequest to person not in existence at testator’s death subject to prior bequest486 words
- 114. Rule against perpetuity469 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. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.