In K.S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors. [2025 INSC 1451], the Supreme Court ruled that gaps or omissions in a witness’s examination-in-chief can be fixed during their cross-examination in proving the validity of a Will.
One of the testator’s daughters, who was excluded from the Will, challenged its authenticity. She argued that the Will was invalid because the sole surviving attesting witness (DW-2) failed to state during his examination-in-chief that he saw the other witness sign the document.
Both the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court agreed with the daughter. They ruled that the Will was not properly proven because the witness (DW-2) did not explicitly mention the other witness’s signature during his initial testimony.
However, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Court noted that although DW-2 missed this detail in his examination-in-chief, the gap was filled during cross-examination. Interestingly, it was the daughter’s own lawyer who asked a leading question in the cross examination that led DW-2 to confirm that the testator and both witnesses had signed the Will on the same day.
The Supreme Court clarified that answers given to leading questions during cross-examination are just as valuable as any other evidence. The Court emphasized that when the plaintiff’s lawyer asked if DW-2 and “others” had signed the Will, and DW-2 answered “yes,” he successfully confirmed the signatures of everyone involved, including the deceased witness.
The Court also observed that the only real suspicion raised in this case was about the testator’s physical health, but his mental capacity and the presence of the witnesses were clearly established.
Furthermore, the Court found that excluding only one child while leaving the property to the other siblings was not a sufficient reason to doubt the Will. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and declared the Will validly proven.
