Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court

"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," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 21, 2026, held that the mere exclusion of natural heirs from a Will does not constitute a suspicious circumstance sufficient to invalidate the document, especially when the testator provides a justification for such a decision.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that a testator is legally entitled to dispose of their property according to their own wishes, and the very purpose of a testamentary disposition is often to depart from the normal line of succession.

The dispute pertained to the estate of B. Sheena Nairi, a Chartered Accountant who executed a Will in 1983 bequeathing his properties in Karnataka to his sister, Laxmi Nairthy, to the exclusion of his wife and five children. Following the testator's death, the wife obtained mutation entries in her favor, leading the sister to file a title suit. The wife and children challenged the Will as forged and fabricated, arguing that their total exclusion was a suspicious circumstance. The Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court all concurrently upheld the validity of the Will.

The primary question before the court was whether the exclusion of natural heirs and the delay in producing the Will constituted "suspicious circumstances" that would vitiate the testamentary disposition. The court was also called upon to determine the evidentiary value of affidavits filed by attesting witnesses and whether the First Appellate Court's failure to strictly frame points for determination under Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC invalidated its judgment.

Will Intended To Interfere With Normal Succession

The Supreme Court emphasized that the fundamental nature of a Will is to interfere with the regular law of inheritance. Referring to established precedents, the bench noted that if the mere deprivation of natural heirs were treated as a suspicious circumstance, it would defeat the purpose of most Wills.

The Court observed that any testator has the legal right to dispose of property as they see fit. It held that exclusion of family members only becomes suspicious if it is accompanied by other factors affecting the genuineness of the execution, which was not the case here.

"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."

Testator Provided Reasons For Exclusion

The bench highlighted that the testator in the present case had explicitly recorded in the Will that he was doing "no injustice" to his wife and children. The Will recited that he had already provided "enough and more" to them, as they were residing in Bombay while the properties in question were situated in Karnataka.

The Court noted that the Appellants failed to enter the witness box to contradict these recitals or provide particulars of the assets they had already received. Therefore, the exclusion was found to be a conscious and reasoned choice by the testator rather than a result of fraud or undue influence.

Proof Of Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act

Regarding the technical proof of the Will, the Court reiterated the principles under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. It noted that the propounder had produced one of the attesting witnesses, PW2, who categorically deposed that the testator signed the Will in his presence.

The Court held that the law does not require mathematical accuracy in proving a Will, but rather the satisfaction of a "prudent mind." Since the attesting witness proved the execution and the signatures matched those on the testator's admitted Power of Attorney, the legal requirements were met.

"If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with."

Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Title

The Appellants argued that they had obtained mutation of the properties in 1984 without objection from the sister. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this contention by clarifying the limited legal scope of revenue records.

The bench held that mutation entries are effected merely for fiscal purposes to enable the State to realize land revenue. They do not confer, extinguish, or create any title in favor of the person whose name is recorded, which must be decided by a competent Civil Court.

"Mutation entries do not confer title and it is effected merely for fiscal purposes, namely, to enable the State to realize tax from the person whose name is recorded in the revenue records."

Technical Non-Compliance With Order XLI Rule 31 CPC

The Appellants contended that the First Appellate Court's judgment was void as it failed to frame specific "points for determination" as mandated by Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC. The Supreme Court rejected this technical objection.

The bench ruled that if an appellate court has substantially considered the entire evidence and provided detailed reasoning, a mere failure to formally frame points does not vitiate the judgment. The Court stressed that procedural rules should not be interpreted in a way that compromises substantial justice.

"Non-compliance with the provisions may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void, and may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it and the second appellate court is in a position to ascertain the findings."

Affidavits Are Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Evidence Act

The Court addressed the issue of affidavits filed by attesting witnesses earlier in the proceedings, which purportedly denied their signatures. It clarified that under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, an affidavit does not fall within the definition of "evidence."

The bench observed that affidavits can only be used as evidence if the Court passes a specific order under Order XIX of the CPC. Furthermore, since these affidavits were filed suspiciously even before the written statements were submitted and the deponents were not subjected to the regular process of the court, they carried no evidentiary weight.

The Supreme Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the three lower courts were well-reasoned and supported by the evidence on record. Finding no substantial question of law or any perversity in the findings, the bench dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the sister's title to the properties under the 1983 Will.

Date of Decision: 21 May 2026