The Supreme Court upheld a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister, holding that a testator is legall entitled to distribute property according to his wishes unless suspicious circumstances affect the genuineness or execution of the Will.
Here is the rewritten article with active voice and shorter sentences for better readability:
Supreme Court On Validity Of Wills
SC Upholds Will Favouring Sister Over Natural Heirs
The Supreme Court has upheld a Will that a testator executed in favour of his sister. The Court ruled that a testator holds the legal right to distribute his property as he wishes. Only suspicious circumstances affecting the Will’s genuineness can override that right.
Exclusion of Natural Heirs Does Not Invalidate a Will
The Supreme Court has made it clear — a Will does not become suspicious simply because the testator excluded natural or legal heirs.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi delivered this ruling on Thursday, May 21. The Court held that a testator can legally dispose of his property according to his own wishes. Excluding natural heirs alone cannot invalidate a Will. Courts must also find suspicious circumstances that affect the Will’s genuineness or execution.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi authored the judgment in Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. and Ors.
Court Says Overall Circumstances Must Be Considered
The Court stressed that judges must not examine a Will in isolation. They must look at the document’s terms, the testator’s intention, and the surrounding circumstances together.
The Bench held that mere exclusion of natural heirs does not automatically create suspicion. Courts cannot outright invalidate a Will only because the testator chose not to give property to legal heirs. Such exclusion becomes relevant only when it appears alongside other suspicious circumstances that question the Will’s genuineness or due execution.
Background Of The Property Dispute
The case involved agricultural and ancestral properties in Karnataka.
The testator, B. Sheena Nairi, worked as a Chartered Accountant and lived in Bombay. He died on November 30, 1983, after suffering a heart attack in Delhi.
Before his death, he executed a Will on May 15, 1983. He bequeathed the suit properties to his sister, Laxmi Nairthy. She later filed a civil suit to claim ownership and possession based on the Will.
Will Was Attested By Two Witnesses
Two witnesses attested to the Will — the testator’s brother, B. Jagannatha Nairi, and Mohammad Saheb.
In the Will, the testator clearly stated that he had already given “enough and more” to his wife and children living in Bombay. He directed that the remaining properties should pass to his sister.
After his death, his wife applied before the Tehsildar for mutation of the properties in her name. Laxmi Nairthy objected and disclosed the Will. Despite her objection, authorities made mutation entries in favour of the wife in 1984. This triggered prolonged litigation that eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Grounds Raised Against The Will
The appellants challenged the Will on multiple grounds:
- The Will was unregistered
- It excluded the natural heirs of the testator
- Suspicious circumstances surrounded its execution
- An attesting witness allegedly filed an affidavit denying execution of the Will
Purpose Of A Will Is To Alter Normal Succession
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that excluding the wife and children created sufficient suspicion about the Will.
The Court relied on settled law. It held that a testator executes a Will precisely to alter the normal line of succession. The Bench referred to Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Another v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 459. It reiterated that excluding natural heirs, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance.
The Court also noted that the Will itself explained the exclusion. The testator had already sufficiently provided for his wife and children during his lifetime. That explanation removed any grounds for suspicion.
Non-Registration Of Will Is Not Fatal
The appellants argued that the unregistered nature of the Will made it doubtful.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument firmly. It held that registration of a Will is not mandatory under law. The Bench cited Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi and Others, (1953) 1 SCC 295. That case established that courts cannot draw an adverse inference against a Will solely because the testator did not register it.
Appeal Dismissed, Will Upheld
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Will.
The Court concluded that B. Sheena Nairi had validly executed the Will in favour of his sister Laxmi Nairthy. The Court found no suspicious circumstances. Excluding the wife and children from the bequest did not invalidate the Will.
