Law Doesn't Require Registration Of Will; Non-Registration No Ground To Doubt Will's Genuineness: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the mere non-registration of a will cannot be treated as a circumstance casting suspicion on its genuineness, emphasizing that Indian law does not mandate registration of wills.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi made the observation while upholding the validity of a will executed by a man in favour of his sister, rejecting objections raised by his wife and children who had challenged the testamentary document as fabricated.

“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 observed, relying on its earlier decision in Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi (1953) 1 SCC 295.

The dispute arose over agricultural and ancestral properties in Karnataka owned by B. Sheena Nairi, who had executed a will in 1983 bequeathing the properties to his sister Laxmi Nairthy. Following his death, his wife and children disputed the will, alleging that it was forged and fabricated and questioning, among other things, why the will had not been registered.

Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court clarified that registration is not a legal requirement for a valid will. The Court noted that while suspicious circumstances surrounding a will may require closer scrutiny, non-registration by itself cannot be one such suspicious circumstance.

The bench also underscored that mutation entries made in revenue records do not confer title, observing that such entries are made only for fiscal purposes. It further held that the exclusion of natural heirs from a will does not automatically render it suspicious, since the very purpose of a will is to alter the ordinary line of succession.

In the present case, the Court found that the will had been duly proved through the testimony of an attesting witness, who confirmed that the testator executed the document voluntarily and in a sound state of mind. The appellants, despite alleging forgery, failed to lead evidence to substantiate their claim.

Finding no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court, first appellate court, and the Karnataka High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

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