In a recent ruling clarifying the evidentiary standards for proving a Will, the Supreme Court of India in K.S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph (2025 INSC 1451) held that material omissions in an examination in chief can be effectively cured during cross examination. The Bench noted that answers elicited through leading questions posed by an adverse party do not lose their probative value. This provides immense clarity on Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, reinforcing that testamentary witness testimony must be evaluated as a cohesive whole rather than in isolated compartments.
The dispute arose from a contested Will where the testator excluded a daughter from inheritance. During the trial, the sole surviving attesting witness failed to state during his examination in chief that he witnessed the other attesting witness sign the document. While the lower courts deemed this a fatal defect that invalidated the document, the apex court reversed the finding. The Supreme Court observed that the missing evidence was successfully supplied when the opposing counsel made a positive suggestion during cross examination, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements for due execution.
Additionally, the court emphasized that judges must evaluate a testamentary document from the armchair of the testator. Courts should not substitute their own notions of fairness or equity for the explicit intentions of the testator, even if a natural heir is excluded. By confirming that leading questions are completely permissible and legally sound, the judgment ensures that technical procedural gaps during chief examinations do not defeat substantial justice or override the clear intent of a deceased property owner.