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. Cause Title: PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND ORS. VERSUS LAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 528Click here to download judgmentAppearance: 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.

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

Yash Mittal

The Court reiterated that non-registration will not make a Will invalid.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

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

Yash Mittal

The Court reiterated that non-registration will not make a Will invalid.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers