In Brief
A daughter from the testator's first marriage challenged a compromise decree by claiming ownership of properties under an earlier 1980 Will, which the trial court found unproven. The High Court reversed this, holding the 1980 Will was validly proved. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, ruling that a registered Will proved through secondary evidence and attesting witness testimony was sufficient under the Evidence Act. The later 1995 Will without explicit revocation of the earlier registered Will could not supersede it, and a compromise decree in a separate suit, to which the daughter was not party, was not binding on her. The appeal was dismissed and the plaintiff's entitlement to the properties confirmed."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.