The Supreme Court held that mere exclusion of natural heirs does not by itself constitute a suspicious circumstance to invalidate a Will, while affirming concurrent findings upholding a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister.
The Supreme Court has upheld a Will executed by B. Sheena Nairi in favour of his sister, Laxmi Nairthy. The Court held that mere exclusion of natural heirs does not automatically create suspicion around a Will.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the appeal filed by the wife and children of the deceased. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and Karnataka High Court.
The judgment came on May 21, 2026, in Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. and Ors.
Background Of The Dispute
The dispute involved agricultural and ancestral properties located in Udupi Taluk, Karnataka. B. Sheena Nairi, a Chartered Accountant based in Bombay, owned the properties.
In 1960 and 1961, he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his brother-in-law, Krishnayya Nairi, for property management.
Later, on May 15, 1983, he executed a Will in favour of his younger sister, Laxmi Nairthy. Through the Will, he revoked the earlier Power of Attorney. He died on November 30, 1983, after suffering a heart attack in Delhi.
After his death, his wife Parvathi Nairthi secured mutation of the properties in her favour before the Tehsildar, Udupi.
In 1990, Laxmi Nairthy filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership, recovery of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction.
The wife and children challenged the Will. They alleged forgery and claimed that the deceased’s brothers fabricated the document after his death.
Findings Of The Courts Below
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Laxmi Nairthy on December 16, 2008.
The Court relied on the testimony of attesting witness B. Jagannatha Nairi. He confirmed that the testator signed the Will in his presence.
The Trial Court also found that the signatures on the Will matched admitted signatures on earlier Power of Attorney documents.
Further, the Court noted that the defendants failed to produce evidence supporting allegations of fraud or forgery.
The First Appellate Court upheld these findings on August 6, 2012. It held that the Trial Court could compare disputed and admitted signatures without seeking a handwriting expert’s opinion.
The Karnataka High Court later dismissed the Regular Second Appeal. It held that no substantial question of law arose in the matter.
Arguments Before The Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the appellants, argued that the plaintiff approached the Court after an unexplained delay.
She also argued that the testator had no valid reason to exclude his wife and children while leaving the properties to his sister.
The appellants further claimed that the First Appellate Court failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Senior Advocate Vinay Navare, appearing for the respondents, argued that the plaintiff had duly proved execution of the Will.
He pointed out that the appellants neither sought forensic examination nor produced a handwriting expert.
The respondents also argued that the Will clearly recorded that the testator had already provided “enough and more” to his wife and children.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice Vijay Bishnoi authored the judgment for the Bench.
The Court examined legal principles governing proof of Wills under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It also referred to several earlier Supreme Court judgments on suspicious circumstances and proof of Wills.
The Court reiterated that suspicious circumstances must be real and substantial, not imaginary.
Rejecting the argument on delay, the Court noted that Laxmi Nairthy had already informed the Tehsildar about the Will in February 1984.
The Bench also reiterated that mutation entries do not confer title. They serve only fiscal purposes.
The Court further held that non-registration does not invalidate a Will.
Mere Exclusion Of Heirs Not Suspicious
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that exclusion of the wife and children itself created suspicion.
The Court relied on the earlier judgment in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee and observed:
“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.”
The Bench noted that the Will specifically mentioned that the testator had already made adequate provisions for his wife and children.
Court Rejects Procedural Objections
The Court also rejected objections regarding Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
It held that substantial compliance with the provision was sufficient since the appellate court had properly examined the evidence and rival submissions.
The Bench further held that affidavits denying execution of the Will could not qualify as substantive evidence unless subjected to cross-examination.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that all three courts had correctly upheld the validity of the Will.
Finding no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings, the Court dismissed the appeal.
The Bench also disposed of all pending applications without any order as to costs.
