Introduction:
In a significant ruling concerning the law relating to testamentary succession and proof of wills, the Supreme Court of India in Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. versus Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. and Ors., reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 528, reiterated that the mere non-registration of a will cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstance affecting its genuineness. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, who upheld the validity of a will executed in favour of the testator’s sister while rejecting allegations of fabrication raised by the wife and children of the deceased.
The dispute revolved around agricultural and ancestral properties situated in Karnataka and owned by one B. Sheena Nairi. During his lifetime, the deceased had executed a will in the year 1983 bequeathing the disputed properties to his sister, Laxmi Nairthy. After the death of the testator, the wife and children challenged the authenticity of the will, contending that it was forged and fabricated. They further argued that the exclusion of the natural heirs from succession created grave suspicion regarding the genuineness of the testamentary document. Another principal contention raised by them was that the will had not been registered, which according to them weakened its evidentiary value and authenticity.
The matter travelled through multiple judicial forums. The trial court examined the evidence led by the parties and concluded that the will had been validly executed in accordance with law. The first appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court, and the Karnataka High Court also declined to interfere with the concurrent findings. Aggrieved by these decisions, the legal heirs approached the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the will.
The case raised important questions relating to the proof of wills under Indian succession law, the significance of registration of wills, the effect of excluding natural heirs from testamentary disposition, and the evidentiary value of mutation entries in revenue records. The judgment assumes importance because disputes concerning wills frequently involve allegations of suspicious circumstances, and courts are often required to balance the sanctity of testamentary freedom with the need to prevent fraudulent claims.
Under Indian law, particularly the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a will is not compulsorily registrable. Although registration may sometimes strengthen the evidentiary value of a document, the absence of registration does not invalidate a will. Courts have consistently held that the essential requirements for proving a will are execution by the testator, attestation by witnesses, and proof that the document was executed voluntarily by a person of sound disposing mind. The present judgment reinforces these settled principles while also clarifying the limited role played by revenue entries in determining title to property.
The Supreme Court’s decision is therefore a noteworthy reaffirmation of long-established principles governing testamentary succession and evidentiary standards in probate-related disputes.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellants, comprising the wife and children of the deceased testator, challenged the will primarily on the ground that it was forged and fabricated. According to them, the will was unnatural because the testator had chosen to exclude his immediate family members from inheritance and instead transferred the properties in favour of his sister. The appellants argued that such exclusion itself created strong suspicion surrounding the authenticity of the document. They contended that it was improbable for a husband and father to deprive his wife and children of ancestral and agricultural properties unless the will had been manipulated or fraudulently created.
The appellants further emphasized that the will had never been registered. They argued that if the testator genuinely intended to transfer valuable ancestral properties to his sister while excluding his immediate heirs, he would ordinarily have ensured registration of the document. According to them, the absence of registration indicated that the will lacked authenticity and had been brought into existence subsequently with a dishonest intention to defeat the legitimate rights of the wife and children.
Another aspect highlighted by the appellants concerned the revenue and mutation records. They sought to rely upon certain revenue entries to assert their claim over the properties and argued that the mutation records did not adequately reflect the alleged transfer in favour of the sister. They contended that the continued presence of the names of the natural heirs in certain records undermined the respondent’s claim arising from the will.
The appellants also questioned the evidentiary value of the testimony produced by the respondents in support of the will. They attempted to create doubt regarding the circumstances in which the document was allegedly executed and sought to portray the testamentary instrument as suspicious. They maintained that the burden of removing all suspicious circumstances rested heavily upon the propounder of the will and argued that such burden had not been satisfactorily discharged.
On the other hand, the respondents, representing the estate of Laxmi Nairthy, strongly defended the validity of the will. They argued that the document had been executed voluntarily by the testator while he was in a sound and healthy state of mind. The respondents contended that the requirements prescribed under law for proving a will had been fully complied with. They pointed out that an attesting witness had entered the witness box and clearly testified regarding the execution and attestation of the will.
The respondents emphasized that the testimony of the attesting witness established that the testator had signed the will voluntarily and consciously in the presence of witnesses. According to them, once the statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act were fulfilled, the burden shifted upon the appellants to substantiate their allegations of forgery and fabrication. They argued that the appellants had failed to produce any convincing evidence to establish that the document was forged.
Addressing the issue of non-registration, the respondents argued that Indian law does not mandate registration of wills. They relied upon settled legal principles and judicial precedents holding that non-registration by itself cannot create suspicion regarding the genuineness of a testamentary document. The respondents asserted that in India a vast majority of wills are unregistered, and therefore the absence of registration cannot be treated as a circumstance invalidating the will.
The respondents also submitted that the exclusion of natural heirs cannot automatically be characterized as unnatural or suspicious. They argued that the very purpose of a will is to enable a person to distribute his property according to his wishes, even if such distribution departs from the ordinary line of succession. Testamentary freedom, they contended, permits a testator to prefer one relative over another for reasons known to him.
With regard to the mutation entries, the respondents argued that such entries are maintained merely for fiscal and administrative purposes and do not confer ownership or title. They maintained that title flows from lawful transfer or succession and not from revenue records. Therefore, according to them, the reliance placed by the appellants on mutation entries was legally misplaced.
The respondents ultimately urged the Supreme Court not to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court, first appellate court, and the Karnataka High Court. They argued that all three courts had carefully appreciated the evidence and unanimously concluded that the will was genuine and validly executed.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the will executed by B. Sheena Nairi in favour of his sister. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed several settled principles governing proof of wills and testamentary succession under Indian law.
At the outset, the Court addressed the contention regarding non-registration of the will. Rejecting the argument advanced by the appellants, the bench categorically observed that there is no legal requirement mandating registration of wills in India. The Court emphasized that wills are, in fact, commonly left unregistered, and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn merely because a testamentary document has not been registered.
The Court relied upon the earlier precedent in Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi (1953) 1 SCC 295, wherein it had been held that non-registration of a will does not by itself create suspicion about its genuineness. Reaffirming this principle, the bench observed that treating non-registration as a suspicious circumstance would be wholly unwarranted and contrary to settled legal principles.
The Court then turned to the issue of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. It reiterated the well-established position that where suspicious circumstances are alleged, the propounder of the will bears the burden of removing such suspicion by leading cogent evidence. However, the Court clarified that every unusual circumstance cannot automatically be labelled suspicious. A distinction must be maintained between legitimate suspicion supported by evidence and mere conjecture or dissatisfaction arising from exclusion from inheritance.
The bench specifically rejected the argument that exclusion of natural heirs automatically renders a will suspicious. The Court observed that the very object of executing a will is to alter the normal course of succession. If every exclusion of a natural heir were treated as suspicious, the concept of testamentary disposition itself would become meaningless. The Court recognized the autonomy and freedom of a testator to dispose of his property according to his wishes.
In the present case, the Court found that the will had been duly proved through the testimony of an attesting witness. The witness had clearly stated that the testator executed the document voluntarily while being in a sound disposing state of mind. The Court noted that the evidence satisfied the statutory requirements governing proof of wills. Importantly, the appellants had failed to produce any convincing material to substantiate their allegations of forgery or fabrication.
The Court observed that mere allegations are insufficient to invalidate a duly proved testamentary document. Where serious allegations such as forgery are raised, the party making such allegations must produce affirmative evidence to support them. In the absence of such evidence, courts cannot discard a properly proved will merely on the basis of suspicion or dissatisfaction among excluded heirs.
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of mutation entries in revenue records. The bench reiterated the settled principle that mutation entries are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and do not confer ownership or title over property. Such entries merely enable the State to collect revenue from persons shown in possession or occupation. The Court clarified that title to property must be determined on the basis of substantive legal rights and not solely on the basis of entries in revenue records.
The Court further noted that three judicial forums, namely the trial court, the first appellate court, and the Karnataka High Court, had concurrently upheld the validity of the will after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The Supreme Court found no perversity or legal infirmity in those findings warranting interference under its appellate jurisdiction.
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed and the will executed in favour of the sister was upheld as genuine and valid. Through this judgment, the Supreme Court has once again reinforced the principle that testamentary freedom remains a vital component of property law in India. The ruling also serves as an important reminder that courts must assess suspicious circumstances on the basis of evidence and settled legal standards rather than emotional assumptions regarding inheritance patterns.
The decision strengthens the jurisprudence surrounding proof of wills by clarifying that non-registration alone cannot invalidate a will, exclusion of natural heirs does not necessarily create suspicion, and mutation entries do not determine title. The judgment is likely to have significant persuasive value in future succession disputes where testamentary documents are challenged on similar grounds.