One witness is enough to prove a will. Here's why.

A will needs two witnesses to sign. But in court, only one has to show up. The courtroom fell silent as the lawyer held up a single sheet of paper — the will — its edges yellowed, the signatures faint but legible. A family's inheritance hung by that thread, and the Supreme Court of India was asked to decide whether a will could be proved when only one of its two witnesses was available to testify.

The answer came down to a single sentence. And it changed everything for every family that will ever fight over a will.

When the will was challenged

The dispute in Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam began like many inheritance battles do: someone died, a will surfaced, and the family split into two camps. One side claimed the will was genuine. The other side said it was a forgery. The person who had written the will — the testator (the person who makes a will) — was no longer alive to confirm anything.

All that remained was a piece of paper with signatures: the testator's, and two witnesses who had signed below. But when the case reached court, only one of those witnesses could be found. The other had died, moved away, or simply refused to appear. The question was brutal and simple: could a will be proved with just one witness, when the law said two were required to sign it?

The lawyer for the propounder (the person who presents the will to court) stood up, holding the will. The judge turned to the statute book and read aloud from Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: "each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time." The silence in the room deepened as the words settled.

The law's two-step dance

To understand the answer, you have to look at two laws that speak to each other. The first is Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the law that governs how wills are made). It says an unprivileged will — the ordinary kind most people make — must be signed by the testator and attested (witnessed) by two or more witnesses. Each witness must sign in the testator's presence. But here is the detail that matters: the law explicitly says "it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time." The witnesses can sign at different moments, as long as the testator sees each signature.

The second law is Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the law that governs what proof is needed in court). It says that if a document requires attestation by law — like a will — you cannot use that document as evidence unless you call at least one attesting witness to prove it was properly executed. That single witness must confirm that the testator signed in their presence, and that the other witness also signed properly.

Read together, these two sections create a specific burden: two witnesses must sign, but only one must testify.

Why the propounder carries the weight

The Supreme Court in this case clarified who bears the burden and how heavy it is. The person trying to prove the will — called the propounder — must prove three things. First, that the testator signed the will in the presence of two attesting witnesses. Second, that those witnesses either saw the testator sign or received a personal acknowledgment from the testator that the signature was theirs. Third, that the witnesses signed in the testator's presence.

The Court drew this three-point test from an earlier judgment, Girija Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt Singh, where the same principle was established. The test is not about producing both witnesses. It is about producing at least one witness who can confirm the entire chain of execution — including the fact that the other witness also signed in the testator's presence.

The Court observed: "It is not necessary that both or all the attesting witnesses to the 'Will' must be examined to prove the 'Will', rather, at least one attesting witness should be called to prove the due execution of the 'Will'." This single sentence resolved the tension between the two laws. The requirement of two witnesses is a requirement of execution, not of proof. You need two people to sign. But you only need one to speak.

What the single witness must confirm

This is where the case gets practical. The single witness who appears in court cannot simply say "I signed the will." They must confirm the entire process. They must say that they saw the testator sign, or that the testator acknowledged the signature to them. They must also confirm that the other witness signed in the testator's presence, or that the testator acknowledged the other witness's signature.

If the single witness can do this, the will is considered proved. The other witness does not need to be hunted down, subpoenaed (legally ordered to appear), or replaced. The law accepts that one reliable witness is enough to establish what happened at the moment of signing.

The Court also noted that Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act provides a fallback: if no attesting witness is available — because all have died, cannot be found, or refuse to give evidence — the will can still be proved by other evidence. But that is a safety net, not the primary route. The primary route is Section 68: call one attesting witness, and let that witness prove the execution of both.

The three-point test in practice

The Girija Datt Singh judgment, which the Supreme Court relied upon, established a critical framework that every lawyer handling will disputes must internalise. The Court in that case focused on the propounder's burden of proof regarding due execution. It observed three mandatory requirements: (i) the propounder must prove that the Will was signed by the testator in the presence of two attesting witnesses; (ii) the attesting witnesses must have either seen the testator sign or must depose that the testator acknowledged the Will and his signature; and (iii) the Court concluded that it is not necessary that both or all attesting witnesses be examined — at least one attesting witness should be called to prove due execution.

This three-point test serves as a practical checklist. When a lawyer stands in court holding a will, they must mentally tick each box: Was the testator's signature witnessed? Did the witness see the signing or receive acknowledgment? Can the single witness confirm the other witness's role? If the answer to all three is yes, the will stands.

The practical lesson for lawyers and families

For anyone drafting or challenging a will, this judgment offers a clear roadmap. When you prepare a will, ensure that both witnesses sign in the testator's presence. Keep their contact details. Make sure each witness understands that they may be called to court years later. But do not panic if one witness becomes unavailable. The law does not require both to appear.

For the person challenging a will, the attack cannot be simply "you only produced one witness." The attack must be on the credibility of that one witness. Can they really remember the signing? Were they actually present? Did they actually see the testator sign? The number of witnesses is not the issue. The quality of the testimony is.

Consider the scene in court: the sole witness takes the stand, the will placed before them. The judge leans forward. "Do you recall the day the testator signed this document?" The witness hesitates for a moment, then nods. "Yes, my Lord. I saw him sign. I saw the other witness sign too. We were both there, though not at the same time." The judge scribbles a note. The propounder exhales. That one witness, that one moment of testimony, is enough.

THE PLAY: When proving a will, call at least one attesting witness who can confirm the testator's signature and the other witness's attestation — the law does not require both to appear.

The court ended where it began: with a piece of paper, two signatures, and one person willing to say what they saw. That one person, the Court said, is enough.