Supreme Court: Excluding Natural Heirs Does Not Make a Will Suspicious
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a Will does not become suspicious simply because it excludes the testator’s natural heirs. In its judgment dated May 21, the Court stated that every person has the legal right to distribute their property according to their wishes.
The Court emphasized that judges must examine a Will as a whole. They should consider the testator’s intention, the contents of the document, and the surrounding circumstances. Mere exclusion of legal heirs cannot invalidate a Will unless other factors create genuine doubts about its authenticity or execution.
A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The dispute concerned ancestral and agricultural properties in Karnataka.
The testator, B. Sheena Nairi, was a Chartered Accountant residing in Bombay. He passed away on November 30, 1983, reportedly due to a heart attack in Delhi.
Before his death, he executed a Will on May 15, 1983. Through the Will, he transferred the disputed properties to his sister, Laxmi Nairthy. Based on this document, she later filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership and possession.
Two witnesses attested the Will: his brother, B. Jagannatha Nairi, and Mohammad Saheb. In the Will, the testator explained that he had already made adequate provisions for his wife and children in Bombay. Therefore, he decided to leave the remaining properties to his sister.
After his death, his wife initiated mutation proceedings before the Tehsildar. Laxmi Nairthy objected and disclosed the existence of the Will. Despite her objection, authorities recorded the mutation in favour of the wife in 1984. The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court after years of litigation.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants challenged the Will on several grounds:
• The Will was not registered.
• It excluded the natural heirs.
• Suspicious circumstances allegedly surrounded its execution.
The appellants also relied on an affidavit allegedly filed by one of the attesting witnesses. In that affidavit, the witness reportedly denied the execution of the Will.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Court rejected the argument that exclusion of legal heirs automatically creates suspicion.
The bench observed that the very purpose of a Will is to alter the normal line of succession. Therefore, disinheriting natural heirs cannot, by itself, raise doubts about the document.
The Court relied on its earlier decision in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee (1995). That judgment also held that exclusion of natural heirs does not constitute a suspicious circumstance by itself.
The Court further noted that the testator had clearly explained his decision. He stated that he had already provided for his wife and children during his lifetime. This explanation strengthened the credibility of the Will.
Non-Registration Does Not Affect Validity
The Court also rejected the argument based on non-registration.
It clarified that no law requires a Will to be registered. In fact, many Wills remain unregistered.
Referring to Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi (1953), the Court held that the absence of registration cannot cast doubt on the genuineness of a Will.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the Will. The Court concluded that the document was genuine, properly executed, and legally enforceable.
Case Details
Case Title: Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) & Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) through LRs & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6859 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12822 of 2013)
