In an important ruling on the law relating to Wills and inheritance, the
Supreme Court of India has held that merely because a wife and children are excluded from a Will, the document cannot automatically be treated as suspicious or invalid. The Court observed that the very purpose of executing a Will is to alter the normal line of succession, and therefore exclusion of natural heirs, by itself, cannot become a ground to discard a testamentary document.
The judgment came in a decades-old family property dispute from Karnataka where the legal heirs of a deceased Chartered Accountant challenged a Will executed in favour of his sister.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the appeal filed by the wife and children of the deceased and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the Karnataka High Court which had all accepted the Will as genuine.
Dispute Began After Death of Chartered AccountantThe case was related to a property of one B. Sheena Nairi, a Chartered Accountant, living in Bombay along with agricultural and ancestral property in Karnataka which included Udupi Taluk.
The deceased had a wife, five children, brothers and sisters. One of his sisters, Laxmi Nairthy, later became the central figure in the litigation.
According to the record, on 15.05.1983, the deceased executed a Will under which he bequeathed the disputed properties in favour of his sister Laxmi. Through the same document, he also revoked a power of attorney earlier granted in favour of his brother-in-law.
A few months later, on 30.11.1983, he died of a heart attack in Delhi.
After his death, the wife got the revenue records mutated in her favour. Years later, the sister instituted a civil suit claiming ownership and possession over the properties on the strength of the Will. She sought declaration of title, possession, injunction and mesne profits.
Family claimed the Will Was FabricatedThe wife and children strongly opposed the suit and claimed that the Will was forged and fabricated.
They argued that the deceased had never executed any such Will and claimed that the signatures appearing on the document were not genuine. According to them, the document had been created later in collusion with other family members after the death of the testator.
A major part of their argument was that it was completely unnatural for a man to deprive his own wife and children of inheritance and instead transfer the properties to his sister.
The appellants also relied upon the fact that the Will was allegedly not produced before the revenue authorities immediately after the death of the deceased and argued that the delay itself created suspicion.
Another submission raised before the Supreme Court was that the First Appellate Court had failed to properly comply with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure while deciding the appeal.
Courts Found the Will Properly ProvedThe Trial Court, however, rejected the allegations of fabrication and accepted the Will as genuine.
One of the attesting witnesses entered the witness box and clearly stated that the deceased had signed the Will in his presence and that both witnesses had attested the document in accordance with law.
The Court also compared the disputed signatures appearing on the Will with admitted signatures of the deceased available on earlier documents and found no material difference between them.
Importantly, the Trial Court observed that although there were serious allegations of fraud and fabrication made, the wife and none of the children appeared in court to establish the same. Instead, only a power-of-attorney holder was examined on their behalf.
The suit was accordingly decreed in favour of the sister. The First Appellate Court and later the Karnataka High Court both affirmed those findings.
Supreme Court Examines Principles Governing WillsBefore examining the factual dispute, the Supreme Court discussed the settled legal principles governing proof of Wills.
The Bench referred to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and reiterated that a Will must ordinarily be proved through examination of at least one attesting witness if such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence.
The Court also revisited earlier landmark decisions explaining how courts should deal with suspicious circumstances surrounding testamentary documents. The Bench observed that although the propounder of a Will has to satisfy the conscience of the Court regarding its genuineness, suspicious circumstances cannot be imaginary or speculative.
The Court observed that such circumstances must be “
real, germane and valid.”
The most significant part of the judgment was the Court’s discussion on exclusion of natural heirs. The appellants repeatedly argued that depriving the wife and children of inheritance itself created grave suspicion about the genuineness of the Will.
The Supreme Court, rejected this argument and made it clear that such a principle would defeat the entire concept of testamentary succession.
The Court observed:“The whole idea behind the execution of a Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession.”The Bench held that if exclusion of family members alone were treated as suspicious, then every Will departing from ordinary succession would become vulnerable to challenge.
The Court also noticed that the Will itself contained an explanation from the deceased. The testator had specifically recorded that he had already adequately provided for his wife and children living in Bombay and therefore was making arrangements for his sister in respect of the Karnataka properties.
The Will stated:“I am doing no injustice to my wife and children or other relatives… I have given enough and more to my wife and children.”The Court found this explanation relevant while rejecting the allegation that the bequest was unnatural or unfair.
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the Will became doubtful because it surfaced after some delay. The Court noted that soon after the death of the testator, the sister had already approached the revenue authorities and disclosed the existence of the Will.
Therefore, the Bench held that there was no unexplained silence or concealment capable of creating suspicion. The Court further reiterated the settled position that mutation entries do not determine title and are relevant only for fiscal purposes.
Similarly, the Court observed that registration of a Will is not compulsory under law and therefore non-registration cannot by itself invalidate a testamentary document.
The appellants had also relied upon certain affidavits executed by attesting witnesses denying execution of the Will. The Supreme Court refused to place reliance upon those affidavits and observed that affidavits are not substantive evidence unless the deponents appear before the Court and are subjected to cross-examination in accordance with law.
The Bench also found it unusual that such affidavits had surfaced even before the written statement in the suit was filed.
Procedural Objection Also RejectedThe Court then dealt with the argument concerning Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
Rejecting the challenge, the Bench held that substantial compliance with procedural requirements is sufficient so long as the appellate court has independently analysed the evidence and assigned reasons for its conclusions.
The Court observed that procedural provisions should not be interpreted mechanically in a manner that defeats substantive justice.
The Supreme Court, holding that the Will had been validly executed and duly proved through the testimony of an attesting witness, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of all three courts below and dismissed the appeal filed by the wife and children of the deceased. The Court held that exclusion of natural heirs by itself does not render a Will suspicious and reiterated that the very purpose of a Will is to permit a person to distribute property in a manner different from the normal line of succession, unless genuine suspicious circumstances affecting the execution or authenticity of the document are proved.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6859 OF 2014
PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND ORS. Vs LAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
Date of Decision: 21.05.2026
Appearance:For Appellant(s): Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Adv. Ms. Anushka Rawal, Adv. Ms. Himani Singh, Adv. Mr. C. Tanay Chaube, Adv. Mrs. Bina Gupta, AORFor Respondent(s): Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Ms. Pavithra V., Adv.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
Follow Us On Social Media