The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that omissions during examination-in-chief can be addressed during cross-examination of a witness. The decision came in a case concerning the validity of a will contested by a daughter who was excluded from it.
Will Dispute and Lower Court Rulings
The dispute centered on the attestation of a will, with the daughter arguing that the omission of a witness (DW-2) specifying whether other attesting witnesses signed the will constituted an incurable defect. The Trial Court and Kerala High Court had previously ruled in favor of the daughter, finding the will improperly proved because the sole surviving attesting witness did not explicitly confirm the other witness’s signature during his initial examination.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
Setting aside the lower courts’ decisions, the Supreme Court, authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, found that the gap in DW-2’s testimony was filled during cross-examination by the plaintiff’s counsel. DW-2 affirmed under questioning that all parties – the testator and both attesting witnesses – had signed the document on the date of execution.
The court observed that leading questions are permitted during cross-examination and the responses obtained hold probative value. While acknowledging that the initial examination-in-chief lacked proof of the other witness’s signature, the court emphasized the information was later provided.
“However, this missing piece was supplied in cross-examination by the plaintiff,” the court stated, noting that DW-2 confirmed the signatures of all involved parties when specifically asked about the other attesting witness.
Prudence and Exclusion of Heir
The Court also considered whether the rule of prudence, requiring heightened caution when a will completely divests legal heirs, applied in this case. It determined that the rule did not apply, as the exclusion under the will was limited to one child, with the propounders being the siblings of the excluded child. The court emphasized it could not substitute its own views for the testator’s reasoning regarding the exclusion.
Appeal Outcome
The appeal was allowed, and the will was deemed validly proved, effectively excluding the plaintiff-daughter from the inheritance.
Cause Title: K. S. Dinachandran Versus Shyla Joseph & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1218
Click here to download judgment
For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukund P. Unny, AOR Mr. Sanjay Nair S., Adv. Mr. A. Hariprasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. P.B. Krishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarath S. Janardanan, AOR Mrs. Anila Tharakan Thomas, Adv. Mrs. Vishnupriya P. Govind, Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
