Mere Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Won't Make Will Suspicious: Supreme Court Upholds Will In Sister's Favour Excluding Wife & Kids

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 21) observed that a Will cannot be invalidated outright as suspicious merely because the testator had excluded his legal heirs from his property.

The Court said that since the testator has the right to dispose his property according to his own wishes, a Will cannot be regarded as suspicious merely because he had excluded his legal heirs from his property.

“It is trite to state that when the validity of a Will is to be determined, the overall terms of a Will, the intention of the testator and the surrounding circumstances have also to be seen. Mere exclusion of the natural heirs from the property of the testator, by itself, cannot be construed as a suspicious circumstance so as to invalidate a Will outrightly. A testator is legally entitled to dispose of his property according to his own wishes, and unless the exclusion is accompanied by suspicious circumstances affecting the genuineness or due execution of a Will, such exclusion alone does not render a Will invalid.”, observed a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.

Background

The dispute concerned agricultural and ancestral properties situated in Karnataka. The deceased testator, B. Sheena Nairi, a Chartered Accountant residing in Bombay, died on November 30, 1983, after allegedly suffering a heart attack in Delhi.

Before his death, he had executed a Will on May 15, 1983, bequeathing the suit properties in favour of his sister, Laxmi Nairthy, who later instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership and possession on the basis of the Will.

The Will was attested by two witnesses — the testator's brother, B. Jagannatha Nairi, and one Mohammad Saheb. In the Will, the testator expressly stated that he had already provided “enough and more” to his wife and children residing in Bombay, and therefore intended to give the remaining properties to his sister.

Following the testator's death, the wife sought mutation of the properties in her name before the Tehsildar. The sister, however, objected and disclosed the existence of the Will. Despite this, mutation entries were made in favour of the wife in 1984, leading to prolonged litigation that culminated in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The appellants challenged the Will on several grounds, including that it was unregistered, excluded the natural heirs, and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. They also relied upon an affidavit allegedly filed by one of the attesting witnesses denying execution of the Will.

Decision

Affirming the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bishnoi rejected the principal argument raised by the appellants about the exclusion of the wife and children from inheritance itself created suspicion surrounding the Will.

Rejecting this contention, the Court relied upon settled precedents holding that the very purpose of a Will is to alter the normal line of succession.

“It is well-established that mere deprivation of natural heirs, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind the execution of a Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession, as categorically held in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Another v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 459.”, the court observed.

The Court noted that the Will itself contained a clear explanation for excluding the wife and children, namely that the testator had already sufficiently provided for them during his lifetime, hence it could not be declared as suspicious merely because the testator had excluded his legal heirs.

Non-Registration Of Will Not Fatal

The appellants also argued that the Will was suspicious because it was not registered.

Rejecting the submission, the Court reiterated that there is no legal requirement mandating registration of a Will and that a majority of Wills are, in fact, unregistered.

“There is nothing in law which requires the registration of a will and wills are in a majority of cases not registered at all. To draw any inference against the genuineness of the will on the ground of its non-registration appears to us to be wholly unwarranted.”, the court quoted in Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi And Others, (1953) 1 SCC 295.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed, and the genuineness of the Will was upheld.

Headnote

Validity and Proof of Execution – Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 68 – Indian Succession Act, 1925; Section 63 – Requirements for proving a Will – The court must evaluate whether the Will was executed by the testator and represents their final testamentary disposition - Proof does not necessitate mathematical accuracy, but must satisfy the conscience of a prudent mind - Compliance with statutory formalities under Section 63 of the Succession Act is mandatory, requiring attestation by at least two witnesses who signed in the presence of the testator - Examination of at least one alive and capable attesting witness satisfies the evidentiary requirement to prove due execution - If suspicious circumstances shroud the execution, the propounder bears a heavier initial onus to dispel them by offering cogent explanations to satisfy the judicial conscience. [Paras 27 – 29]

Exclusion of Natural Heirs – Whether the exclusion of natural heirs amounts to a suspicious circumstance – The primary objective of executing a Will is to alter the natural line of succession - Mere deprivation or exclusion of natural heirs, by itself, is legally insufficient to construe a circumstance as suspicious or to invalidate a Will outright - Prudence requires an indication of the testator's mind regarding the disposition; however, where the terms of the Will explicitly state that sufficient provisions or properties have already been provided to the spouse and children during the testator's lifetime, such exclusion cannot vitiate the validity of the Will. [Paras 32 - 34]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Compliance with Appellate Judgment Requisites – Order XLI Rule 31 – Effect of framing general points for determination – Strict technical interpretation of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC should not compromise substantial justice - Total or partial non-compliance with the requirement to frame specific points for determination does not automatically vitiate an appellate judgment or render it void - If a perusal of the judgment demonstrates that the First Appellate Court made an honest endeavor to appraise the rival contentions, thoroughly scrutinized the entire evidence on record, and provided well-supported reasons for its conclusions, there is substantial compliance with the law. [Paras 36, 37]

Evidentiary Value of Affidavits – Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 3 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Order XIX– Whether an affidavit constitutes 'evidence' – An affidavit does not fall within the definition of "evidence" under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - It can only be treated as evidence if the Court passes a specific order for sufficient reasons under Order XIX of the CPC - In the absence of an opportunity for cross-examination, or where the circumstances surrounding the filing of such affidavits appear suspicious or self-created prior to the submission of pleadings, they cannot be relied upon to determine factual situations or invalidate a proved document - It is a settled proposition of law that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer, create, or extinguish title over immovable property. Such entries are effected purely for fiscal purposes to enable the State to realize land revenue from the person recorded therein. [Relied on Meena Pradhan and Others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1198; H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 31; Balwant Singh and Another v. Daulat Singh (Dead) By LRs. and Others, (1997) 7 SCC 137; Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Another v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 459; Ram Piari v. Bhagwant and Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 364; Para 31-38]

Cause Title: PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND ORS. VERSUS LAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Click here to download judgment

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, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Ms. Pavithra V., Adv.