Aditya Law Firm

24/05/2024

Will under Indain Law

1. Procedure for Registering a Will - To register a Will, the testator or executor may take it to a Registrar or Sub-registrar. Under Section 40(11) of the Indian Registration Act, The Will given for registration can be withdrawn at any time and is not binding until the executor's death. In K.S.Reddy vs. M.S.Reddi, AIR 1943, Mad.332, 'A' left a Will for his minor widow 'B' on the day before his death. The Will was registered after being presented for registration by the father of 'B'. The Will registration was found to be valid.

2. Professional Witnesses cannot attest to a will as they are always present in the Sub-registrar's office hallways. A will must be witnessed by two or more individuals. This is an extremely critical criterion. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires the Will to be 'attested' by two or more witnesses. Attestation confirms that the testator signed the Will voluntarily in front of a witness. Witnesses should not be related to the testator or a beneficiary in the will.

3. Exemption of Testator: If a testator is unable to attend the Sub-registrar's Office due to illness or other justifiable reasons, they are exempt from registering their will. He might request a visit from the Sub-registrar to his residence or hospital by paying the necessary fee. The following individuals are excluded from attending the Office of the Sub-Registrar:
- Person in jail - Muslim pardhanashin lady - Person unable to appear before the Sub-registrar's Office due to physical disability.

4. Stamp duty and registration charges do not apply to wills. As a result, a will does not need to be written on stamp paper. The Indian Stamp Act does not require the use of wills. A will, therefore, can be written on a plain sheet of paper. The individual making the Will must sign it or leave his thumb impression. It is not necessary to sign every page of the paper, but it is recommended to avoid future disputes. However, registration charges differ per state.

5. Difference Between Executor and Administrator:-A testator appoints someone to carry out their wishes in their Will. The person appointed in the Will is referred to as the "Executor". If an executor is not specified in a Will, the Court must appoint a "Administrator" to carry out the Will's directions.

6. Significance of Will Registration:- Wills must be registered in the same manner as other papers and shall be registered, if the Registering Officer is satisfied.

that the testator executed the will or power.
that the testator has died; and
the person presenting the Will or authority is entitled to do so under Section 40.

The registration of a Will represents nothing more than what it claims to be. The registration of a document simply indicates that it was provided by the person entitled to do so and received due publicity as a result of the registration process, with the registering authority determining its ex*****on. The larger questions about the disposing mind of the testator, the power of the testator to write a Will, or his competence are all subjects for consideration by relevant Courts, either in probate processes or in civil suit. Daulat Ram vs. Smt. Jai Dai, AIR 1965, Punj 378.

7. Deposit of Wills:-Under Sections 42 and 46, a person forming a Will may deposit it with any Registrar in a sealed cover superscribed with the testator's name, the name of his agent (if any), and a declaration of the nature of the instrument. The purpose of this section is clear: the provisions of the Will preserved in a sealed cover shall remain hidden during the testator's lifetime, but after his death, the terms of his Will shall be made public, and copies of the Will shall be available to the public. The deposit of a Will is not equivalent to registration. Abdul Razack vs. Amir, ILR 10, Cal. 976 (PC). When a testator who has deposited a sealed cover dies, anyone who is prepared and willing to pay the necessary copying and other fees may seek to have the sealed cover opened. It is not necessary for the applicant to be a claimant or executor under the Will. The Original Will must always be stored in the Registrar's office. However, when the court orders the Original Will to be produced, the Registrar should send the original.

8. Wills and Inheritance: The Indian Succession Act of 1925 applies to all Indian citizens except Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and Mohammadans. However, the Act does apply in part to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, subject to the limitations outlined in Schedule II. Part VI of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, deals with wills. The provisions of Part VI, which apply to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains, are listed in Schedule II of the Act. The requirements of the Indian Succession Act do not apply to Muslims.

20/05/2024

18/05/2024

17/05/2024

09/05/2024

Legal Updates
• The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors., has held that while exercising the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) the Court can interfere with the order of the acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.
• The Supreme Court in the matter of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., has overturned the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment and set aside the automatic stay vacation rule. The Supreme Court also issued crucial guidelines on the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• The Allahabad High Court in the matter of M/S Genius Ortho Industries v. Union of India and Ors., has held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) can only be exercised for a petitioner who has approached the Court in good faith and with clean hands.
• The Delhi High Court in the matter of Kirti v. Renu Anand & Ors., has held that the orders passed by the tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• The Karnataka High Court in the matter of Dr. Yogananda A v. The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Ors., has held that Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) provides safeguards to the government employees including the right to fair inquiry before any adverse action is taken against the employees.
• The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Raksha and Anr v. State of UP & Ors., has held that as per the Hindu Law, a person having a spouse alive cannot live in an illicit and live-in relationship in contravention of the provisions of the law.
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., has held that for applying Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) the presence of two or more groups or communities is essential.
• The Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Suresh Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand has held that once the basic ingredient of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is proved by the prosecution then the Court will presume the guilt of the accused.
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, has held that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation for committing an offence under the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Calcutta High Courtin the matter of Janak Ram v. State, has held that addressing an unknown lady as darling would be a criminal offence under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (IPC).
• The Supreme Court in the matter of A.M. Mohan v. The State has held that for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) it must be shown that the person who cheated was dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person.
• The Gauhati High Court in the matter of Dimbeswar Bobo v. The State of Assam, has held that without proving the mens rea, mere possession of the said counterfeit notes is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Patna High Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., has held that the act of a married woman of staying in the house of an old man of different religion after being left by her husband does not constitute adultery.
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Srikant Upadhyay v. The State of Bihar has held that an accused would not be entitled to pre-arrest bail if the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is pending against him.
• The Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Kachhap v. Sangeeta Toppo, has held that when a wife chooses to live separately from her husband without any valid reason, she is not eligible for maintenance under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The Madras High Court in the matter of Simon and Ors. v. State has held that public assembling and demonstrating against police will not be considered as an offence when there is no prohibitory order under the provisions of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (CrPC).
• The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Vishwanath v. State of U.P and Ors., has held that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) doesn’t bar registration of FIR in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court.
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand has held that the chargesheet should abide by all the particulars of Section 173 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• The Kerala High Court in the matter of Santhosh @ Chandu v. State, has held that irregularity caused by the misjoinder of charges doesn’t vitiate conviction unless miscarriage of justice is proved.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Majid @ Bablu & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh has held that the learned trial Court should pass the order under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(CrPC) before passing the order of acquittal.
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala summarized certain factors that the Courts considered while deciding convict’s period of sentence before remission could be sought.
• The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Omprakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Anr., has held that the power conferred under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) should be exercised by the criminal courts with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay.
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafar v. State of Kerala has held that the testimony of the prosecution witness identifying the accused persons at the police station cannot be considered as a proper Test Identification Parade (TIP) to convict the accused.
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Ekene Godwin & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu has held that recording only the examination in chief of witnesses without recording their cross-examination is contrary to the law.
• The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas and Anr., has held that when the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is silent regarding a procedural aspect, the inherent power of the Court can come to its aid for doing real and substantial justice between the parties.
• The Supreme Courtin the matter of Thangam and Anr. v. Navamani Ammal, has held that the failure on the part of the defendant to give a specific para-wise reply in the written statement would make the allegations made in the plaint as admitted against the defendant.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Prakash Kodwani v. Smt. Vimla Devi Lakhwani & Ors., has held that as per the provisions of Rule 17 of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), only pleadings proposed should be considered in the amendment application and not the merits of the proposed amendment.
• The Delhi High Court in the matter of X. v. Y. has held that a wife’s request for financial support from her husband cannot be termed as an act of cruelty.

12/04/2024

Legal Updates
• The Bombay High Court in the matter of Kunal Kamra v. Union of India & Connected Matters., has held the proposed Fact Check Unit under the 2023 amendment to the Information & Technology Rules 2021 directly infringed fundamental rights provided under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) due to the differential treatment between online and print content.
• Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of XYZ & ABC v. Union of India has held that reproductive health is a facet of personal liberty under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Rupashree H. R. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., has held that the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• The Madras High Court in the matter of S Gurumoorthi v. State has held that the right to attend the funeral falls under the ambit Article 25 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• The Allahabad High Court in the matter of M/S Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. & Ors., has held that the writ of certiorari is not issued as a matter of course, but rather it is granted at the discretion of the Superior Court.
• The Kerala High Court in the matter of Teresa Mary George v. State of Kerala, has held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) cannot be invoked for the ex*****on of a decree.
• The Supreme Courtin the matter of Lucknow Nagar Nigam & Ors. v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., has held that the right to property as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) extends to persons who are not citizens of India.
• The Supreme Courtin the matter of Velthepu Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) & Anr., has held that common intention under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) cannot be inferred mechanically merely based on the presence of accused near the scene of offence.
• The Kerala High Court in the matter of Shine Kumar v. State of Kerala, has allowed the plea of insanity as a defence under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Orissa High Court in the matter of Pata @ Pratap Puri v. State of Odisha, has held that evidence adduced from the microscopic hair comparison cannot be solely used to record a conviction for murder against an accused person.
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, has held that the mere fact that the deceased committed su***de within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) would not automatically apply. Therefore, before a presumption under Section 113A of IEA is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.
• The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dhirendra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr., has held that the mere use of abusive language or being discourteous or rude would not by itself amount to any intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Calcutta High Court in the matter of Sanjay Biswas v. The State has held that filling up gaps in the prosecution case by invoking Section 53A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) would offend Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh @ Baba, has held that the Courts cannot issue processes under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to compel the production of documents based on the application made by the accused at the stage of framing of charges.
• The Bombay High Court in the matter of Bansilal S. Kabra v. Global Trade Finance Limited & Anr., has held that when a Magistrate is conducting a mandatory inquiry under the provisions of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before summoning an accused living beyond jurisdiction, the Magistrate should not solely rely on the allegations in the private complaint.
• The Supreme Courtin the matter of Shiv Jatia v. Gian Chand Malick & Ors., has held that once the Magistrate has called for the police report under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), then the magistrate couldn’t issue a summon unless the report is submitted by the police.
• The Karnataka High Court in the matter of Junaid B v. State of Karnataka has held that the minor offence within the provisions of Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) should essentially be a cognate offence of the major offence and not entirely a distinct and different offence constituted by altogether different ingredients.
• The High Court of Kerala in the matter of Litty Thomas v. State of Kerala, has held that before the Judge proceeds to frame the charge under the provisions of Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), he has to form an opinion, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Sanjay Nagayach v. The State of Madhya Pradesh has held that the surrendering of an accused is not necessary before preferring a criminal revision application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Souvik Bhattacharya v. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office heard the appeal against the decision of High Court which dismissed the appeal of appellant who voluntarily surrendered.
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Atamjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., has held that the time-barred nature of an underlying debt in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881(NI Act) is a mixed question of law and fact which ought not to be decided by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• The Gauhati High Court in the matter of Sri Rajen Nayak v. The State of Assam & Anr., has held that the accused has a right to remain silent and the burden of proof cannot be shifted upon the accused under the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) when multiple witnesses to the crime were present.
• The Patna High Court in the matter of Sushil Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar & Ors., has held that the question of exercising discretionary power of granting the benefit of doubt does not arise when the evidence on record is absolutely silent in respect of the role of the accused persons.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Prahalad Gujar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, has held that the use of criminal force upon the child to outrage her modesty, is indicative of the sexual intention of the accused, thereby constituting an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Act, 2012 (POCSO).
• The Karnataka High Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Prathap, has held that a person convicted under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) cannot avail the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
• The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sanjay Agarwal v. Rahul Agarwal and Ors., has held that the objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) are not maintainable in ex*****on proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award.
• The Karnataka High Court in the matter of Shahen @ Hanifa v. Shivakumar Bolishetty & Ors., has held that while considering an application made under Rule 2 of Order III of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the trial court cannot assess and prejudge the evidence that would be given by the Special Power of Attorney.
• The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Saurabh Kalani v. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund & Ors. has held that the rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) will not operate as res judicata on deciding issue of limitation raised at the time of final hearing.
• The Bombay High Court in the matter of Moti Dinshaw Irani and Anr. v. Phiroze Aspandiar Irani and Ors., has held that if the earlier suit itself was pending and no decree therein had been passed, there would be no question of the provisions of Rule 3A of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
• The Supreme Court in the matter of Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR V. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs., has held that under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (SRA) a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession.
• The Karnataka High Court in the matter of ABC v. XYZ, has held that if the husband fails to take the wife back to the matrimonial home in the absence of a stay on the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, then it would be open to the wife to seek interim maintenance for herself.
• The Karnataka High Court in the matter of M R Mohan Kumar & Others v. NIL, heard about issuance of probate in the case where executor has not been named.
• The Delhi High Courtin the matter of Ranjana Bhasin v. Surender Singh Sethi & Ors., has held once a party has filed the written statement, it forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act).

09/04/2024

Kindly refer Part 1
https://adityalaw.blogspot.com/.../will-under-indian-law...
11.Witnesses:-
Witnesses must possess the capacity to act as Such. Because an attesting witness must be capable of physical and mental presence when the tesator signs the Will. Blind persons and persons of unsound mind cannot be competent witnesses. It is important to note that a beneficiary or his/her spouse should not witness a Will "Benefit" includes the benefit of a charging clause given to an executor. It is normal to include such a clause in a Will appointing a professional executor, for example, an Advocate. ln such a case the Advocate/Executor shall not act as a witness. It is advisable, non-beneficiary witnesses alone shall sign on the Will.
12.Choice of Executors:-
The choice of appointing an executor depends upon the settled views of the testator. Appointing an executor's depends on several factors. The size and nature of the estate. If the estate is small or when there is only one beneficiary, no executor's appointment in the Will is necessary. Normally, a professional appointee Will wish to charge for his services. When there is a sole beneficiary, the same beneficiary is appointed in the Will as an executor. However, it would normally be unwise to appoint one of several beneficiaries to act alone, because of the danger that a conflict of interest would arise. As far as possible, the appointment of an executor shall be avoided. Particularly an advocate shall never be appointed. For the simple reason, an advocate Will drag on the matter for his livelihood. If the estate is small, it becomes financially burdensum on the part of beneficiaries.
13. 'Testator',"Testatrix':-
The word Testator is used for mascular gender. “Testatrix” is used for feminine gender.
14. Free from Fraud/Coercion/Undue influence :-
A Will becomes void if the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion or by such importunity. (Section 6l of Indian Succession Act, 1925).
15. Registration of a Will:-
Under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, registration of Will is not compulsory. Section 17 deals with the compulsory registration of documents. Nothing is mentioned in the said Section that a Will as a document is compulsorily registerable. However, under Section 18(c), the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the registration of a Will is optional. It is mentioned that a Will is only optionally registerable.
Thus there is nothing under law which requires the registration of a Will and therefore no inference can be drawn against the genuineness of a Will on the ground of which non- registration. At the same time the Courts may not accept a Will as genuine, even though it is registered.
16. Registration is desirable :-
It is always wise to register a Will since the authorized copy of the Will, Will be available with the Sub-Registrar and can be made use of it, if the copy of the Will is lost.
17. Will can be probated:-
A Will can also be probated. Probate means certification of the will by a court under its seal. When a Will is probated, it conclusively establishes the fact that a valid Will was made. Sometimes for transfer of certain immovable properties, probate of the Will is necessary. It may be noted that a Will which is not probated is also perfectly valid.
18. Advantages of Registration:-
• If a Will is registered, it cannot be tampered with, stolen, destroyed, or mutilated.
• If a Will is registered, it Will be in the safe custody at the office of the Sub-registrar.
• If a Will is registered, the secrecy of the Will, Will be maintained, since nobody can examine the contents of it. Section 57(2) of the Indian Registration Act,1908, provides that a certified copy of a Will can be given only to the testator or his agent. It is only after the death of the testator of the Will, a certified copy Will be granted to any person applying for it and also producing the Death Certificate of the testator issued by the competent authority.
• If a Will is registered and uncontested by any person after the death of the testator, it becomes easy to get the properties mutated in the name of the legal heirs without obtaining a probate of the Will by any Court.
• The fact that a Will was duly registered after it had been executed ordinarily removes any ground for suspicion (Mahindranath vs. Netai Charan, ILR, 1943(1)Cal.392).
19. Biggest advantage:-
The biggest advantage in writing a Will is this. The property given through a Will automatically gets transferred to the person or persons to whom the property is given without requirement of any further action on the part of the person getting the property. For example, if a person gets a piece of land or a house through a Will, he becomes the owner of that property. He need not execute any document nor go to Sub-registrar's office, for registration for changing the property to his name. When the testator dies, the beneficiary or beneficiaries shall obtain a death certificate either from the Municipality, Gram panchayat or Revenue authorities (whoever is incharge), and also a death certificate from the hospital, if the testator dies in a hospital. For change of name in the revenue records in case of agricultural land, and in case of change of name in house properties situate in Gram Panchayat/Municipal records for change of name in water meters and also in electricity records the beneficiary/beneficiaries shall apply to the concerned authorities along with a certified copy of death certificate (not original) along with a certified copy of the document of Will (not original), for change of name/names in the concerned records. Similarly, a person can get any securities transferred to his name by submitting a certified copy of the Will to the Company. No transfer deed or stamp duty is required as transfer takes place by the operation of law.

17/03/2024

Will under Indian Law

1. Meaning of A Will:
A will is a property disposition made during a person's lifetime that is intended to be effective after death. Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 defines the term "will". The term "will" refers to the legal disposition of a testator's wishes regarding their property after death. A Will is a legal declaration of a person's wishes to be carried out after death.
Making a Will is the only way to ensure that a person's property is peacefully transferred after death, avoiding disputes and complications.
2. Characteristics of a Will:
The following are four major characteristics of a Will:
• A Will must be intended to take effect after the testator's death.
• A Will can be revoked by the testator at any time.
• Wills are typically used to dispose of property, but they can also be used to create trusts and appoint executors.
• A Will can also be used to appoint guardians for minors.

3. Will and Bequest :
Definition of: A Will is a document in which the testator appoints executors to administer their estate after death and specifies how it should be distributed to beneficiaries. To be legally valid, the Will must meet the formal requirements of Part VI of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Schedule III.
A bequest is a gift of property other than land made through a will. The term "bequest" refers to disposing of personal property through a will. Personal properties include movable assets such as money, gold, library books, machines, and household items.
The person who makes the Will is known as the "Testator," and the person who benefits from it is known as the "legatee" or "beneficiary."
There are no restrictions on the right to receive property under a will. As a result, anyone can be a legatee, including a minor or a company. However, anything given to a person that did not exist at the time of the testator's death is invalid.
The term "Devise" refers to a gift by will or real property. Real property, also known as immovable property, refers to land, houses, and other structures. The beneficiary is known as a 'devisee'.
Advocates, scribes, and document writers in India often use these words without understanding their true meanings.

4. Benefits of Creating a Will:
There are several benefits to creating a will:
• Without a Will, a person's property passes to their heirs based on applicable inheritance laws. A Will allows a person to dispose of property for special needs of family members, such as a disabled son, widowed daughter, or invalid parents.
• By writing a will, individuals can provide for their faithful servants and friends in need, as well as charitable institutions such as orphanages, schools, and temples.
• A person may deprive a distrusted wife of her inheritance rights.
• Writing a Will can help to avoid family disputes to the greatest extent possible.
• Accidents such as motor accidents and railway accidents are a common cause of unnatural deaths. It is recommended to create a will after reaching the age of 50.

5. Who can make a Will?
According to Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, certain individuals are eligible to do so.
• Majors of sound mind who are not minors have the right to make a will to dispose of their property. Age does not determine mental soundness. A testator's age, such as 95 years, does not necessarily indicate a lack of capacity to execute a will unless medical evidence proves unsound mind.
• Drunkenness is not indicative of incapacity. Physical incapacity to sign his name does not imply that the testator lacked sound disposing mind. "A person of sound mind" refers to their mental state, not their physical health.
• Married women have the right to dispose of any property they may have alienated during their lifetime through their will.
• Individuals who are deaf, dumb, or blind are not ineligible to make a will if they understand its purpose.
• A person who is ordinarily insane may make a Will while he is of sound mind.
• Corporate and unincorporated bodies cannot create their own wills, but can benefit from an individual's.
• No person can make a Will if he is in such a state of mind, whether due to intoxication, illness, or any other cause, that he does not understand what he is doing.
Illustrations:
• A is aware of his surroundings and can answer basic questions, but lacks knowledge about his property, relatives, and beneficiaries. 'A' cannot create a valid will.
• A signs a Will but does not fully comprehend its purpose or implications. The instrument does not constitute a valid will.
• A debilitated but capable individual creates a Will to determine how to dispose of their property. This is a valid will.

6. Will Preparation :-
The preparation of Wills is a matter involving considerable skill and not something to be lightly undertaken by those lacking the necessary experience.
While model forms can aid in the precise wording of clauses in a Will, it's important to avoid simply copying formulae as this can lead to disaster.
When preparing a Will for a client, the Advocate or Document Writer must ensure two things. First, that the Will is valid; second, that it accurately expresses the testator's wishes.

7. The Advocate must ensure that the Will accurately represents the testator's wishes:
To provide guidance and advice on various matters, it's necessary to take full instructions from the client (rather than being introduced as a client by the bank manager).

8. Testator's Instructions:-
Obtaining instructions for preparing a Will usually requires an interview with the testator, even if their wishes are clearly stated in a letter to their advocate. The Advocate may propose implications that the client is unaware of, as well as alternative and potentially more advantageous approaches to achieving their goals. It is important to invite the client to consider additional important issues. The client's Will is ultimately their responsibility, but they often rely heavily on it. Advocate's advice and guidance to create the most appropriate Will for his specific circumstances.
9. Validity of a Will :-

Issues to Consider: A Will's validity is determined by different key issues. The issues are presented below:
• The testator must possess the necessary capacity. The testator must be at least 18 years old and understand the consequences of their actions, the extent of their property, and any moral claims they may have. In the vast majority of cases, this fundamental requirement is unlikely to be seriously contested.
• If there is any doubt about the testator's mental capacity, such as serious illness or a history of mental illness, it is recommended that a medical practitioner examine and witness the Will. This provision is extremely important.
• If a medical practitioner refuses to testify, they should provide a declaration regarding the testator's mental capacity.
• If a medical practitioner is unwilling to accommodate an alternative request, it is best to seek another qualified practitioner.

• The testator must have the proper intent to make the Will. This includes both the intention to create a will and the specific will executed. As a result, the testator must fully understand and approve the Will's contents. The validity of a Will is typically assumed if the testator had capacity and executed it. However, if the testator is blind or illiterate, they must demonstrate knowledge and approval.
• The attestation clause confirms that the Will was read to the testator in front of witnesses and he gave his approval.
• The above-mentioned presumption will not apply if there are "suspicious circumstances," such as a Will that primarily benefits the person who prepared it. To be admitted to probate, the Will must be verified by removing any suspicious elements.
• To be legally valid, a will must be in writing, signed by the testator or someone on their behalf, and acknowledged in front of two or more witnesses. The testator's signature must indicate that he intended to carry out the Will. The witnesses must then attest to and sign the Will (or acknowledge their signatures) in the presence of the testator, but not necessarily each other.
• No form of attestation is required. However, it is highly desirable to include an attestation clause that purports to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements, thereby raising the presumption of due ex*****on. In the absence of a clause, an affidavit of due ex*****on, sworn by witnesses, is typically required to admit the Will to probate. This can be challenging in cases where witnesses are deceased or cannot be traced.