The Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of a Will executed by a Karnataka-based chartered accountant in favour of his sister, ruling on 24 May that the mere exclusion of natural heirs from inheritance cannot, by itself, constitute a suspicious circumstance sufficient to invalidate a testamentary document. The judgment reinforces settled principles on the proof and validity of Wills under Indian succession law.

Background of the Dispute

The case centred on properties owned by the late B. Sheena Nairi, including agricultural lands in Udupi district, Karnataka, bequeathed to his sister, Laxmi Nairthy, under a Will dated 15 May 1983. His wife and children were excluded from the bequest and subsequently challenged the Will, alleging it was forged and fabricated. They contended that the very exclusion of legal heirs created suspicious circumstances warranting invalidation.

The challenge was dismissed by the trial court, the first appellate court, and the Karnataka High Court — all of which upheld the Will's validity. The wife and children then appealed to the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court Ruled

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of all lower courts. The Bench held that '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 court further observed: '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.' The judgment also noted that the Will itself recorded that the testator had already given 'enough and more' to his wife and children residing in Bombay, and therefore no injustice had been caused to them.

Key Legal Principles Affirmed

On the standard of proof for Wills, the apex court reiterated that the testimony of one attesting witness is sufficient to establish due execution if it satisfies the requirements of the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act. Attesting witness B. Jagannatha Nairi had deposed that the testator signed the Will in his presence and that both signed it in each other's presence — testimony the court found credible.

The Bench also rejected the argument that delay in producing the Will cast doubt on its genuineness, noting that the beneficiary had moved a representation before the Tehsildar in 1984 itself, seeking mutation based on the Will. On mutation entries, the court reiterated that entries in revenue records do not confer title and are carried out only for fiscal purposes.

On Registration and Affidavits

The Supreme Court clarified that non-registration of a Will does not affect its legal validity, observing: 'There is nothing in law which requires the registration of a Will and Wills are in a majority of cases not registered at all.' The court declined to rely on affidavits allegedly filed by attesting witnesses denying execution of the Will, holding that an affidavit is not 'evidence' within the meaning of the Evidence Act unless the deponent is subjected to cross-examination.

Procedural Objection Rejected

The appellants had also argued that the first appellate court failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code in framing points for determination. The Justice Bhuyan-led Bench held that mere technical defects in framing such points would not vitiate a judgment where there was substantial compliance and proper appreciation of evidence.

With all grounds rejected, the apex court affirmed the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal, closing a dispute that had traversed four levels of the Indian judiciary over several decades.