Excluding wife, kids does not invalidate Will, says Supreme Court: Why ‘natural heirs’ can’t claim property by default

“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 Supreme Court bench said on May 21, dismissing the appeal filed by the deceased’s family members over ancestral properties in Karnataka.

Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vijay Bishnoi said a Will must be proved through at least one attesting witness, and courts must determine if it was executed voluntarily.

Supreme Court on ‘suspicious circumstances’

• Before examining the facts, the Supreme Court revisited settled principles governing proof of Wills under the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act.
• The Supreme Court reiterated that a Will must be proved through at least one attesting witness and that courts must determine whether it was executed voluntarily, in a sound state of mind, and free from suspicious circumstances.
• The court held that the Will in the present case stood duly proved through the testimony of the attesting witness and found no material raising legitimate suspicion over its execution.

• Rejecting the appellants’ central argument that natural heirs had been completely excluded, the Supreme Court said exclusion alone cannot invalidate a testamentary disposition.
• “It is trite to state that when the validity of a Will is to be determined, the overall terms of a Will, the intention of the testator, and the surrounding circumstances have also to be seen,” the court said.
• The court 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 was therefore not doing injustice to them.

Dispute over ancestral properties

The dispute concerned agricultural and ancestral properties situated in Brahmavar and Chanthar villages in Karnataka’s Udupi district.

According to the judgment, B Sheena Nairi, a chartered accountant based in Bombay, executed a Will on May 15, 1983, bequeathing all the suit properties in favour of his younger sister Laxmi Nairthy. He died on November 30, 1983, after suffering a heart attack in Delhi.

The Will also revoked an earlier power of attorney granted in favour of his brother-in-law for the management of some properties. Following his death, his wife Parvathi Nairthi secured mutation of the properties in her favour through proceedings before the Tehsildar in Udupi in 1984.

However, in November 1990, Laxmi Nairthy filed a civil suit claiming ownership under the Will and seeking possession of several properties allegedly retained by relatives acting under the earlier power-of-attorney arrangement. The wife and children challenged the Will as fabricated and alleged that the signatures appearing on it were forged after the death of the testator.

Trial court found Will genuine

The trial court, by judgment dated December 16, 2008, upheld the Will and declared Laxmi Nairthy owner of the suit properties. The court relied heavily on the testimony of B Jagannatha Nairi, one of the attesting witnesses, who stated that the deceased executed the Will in his presence and that both signed it before each other.

The court also compared disputed signatures on the Will with admitted signatures of the deceased appearing on earlier documents and concluded that they matched. Importantly, it noted that neither the wife nor the children stepped into the witness box to substantiate allegations of forgery. Instead, only a power-of-attorney holder deposed on their behalf.

The first appellate court affirmed the findings in August 2012, and the Karnataka High Court dismissed the second appeal in November 2012.

Delay in producing Will rejected as ground

• The appellants had further argued before the Supreme Court that the Will surfaced nearly seven years after the death of the testator and after mutation proceedings had already taken place in favour of the family.
• Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court noted that Laxmi Nairthy had issued a representation to the tehsildar as early as February 10, 1984, asserting rights under the Will.
• The Supreme Court said the trial and high courts had rightly concluded there was no unexplained delay.
• The top court reiterated that mutation entries do not confer ownership and exist only for fiscal purposes.
• It also clarified that non-registration of a Will has no bearing on its validity because Indian law does not mandate compulsory registration of testamentary documents.

Affidavits not enough to discredit Will

• The appellants also relied on affidavits allegedly filed by attesting witnesses denying execution of the Will.
• The Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that affidavits by themselves do not amount to substantive evidence unless tested through cross-examination.
• The court also found it suspicious that the affidavits had surfaced even before written statements were filed in the suit.

Appeal dismissed

Finding no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the three courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Karnataka High Court judgment.

“The concurrent findings of all the Courts have rightly given a well-reasoned decision upholding the validity of the Will,” the bench held.

Supreme Court ends elderly woman’s decades-old property row

In a relief to a woman in her 70s locked in a decades-old property dispute, the Supreme Court recently restored execution proceedings in connection with a flat that was jointly owned with her estranged husband, while criticising the litigation history as a “comedy of errors” and holding that courts cannot allow technicalities to frustrate a 2012 decree that had recognised the woman’s 50 per cent share in the property.

Justices K V Viswanathan and S V N Bhatti were hearing the appeal filed by a woman who had jointly purchased a flat with her estranged husband using their combined income.