Supreme Court clarifies case law on Wills and Testaments.
Supreme Court clarifies case law on Wills and Testaments: NEW DELHI — In a significant judgement clarifying the legal framework surrounding testamentary documents, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that Indian law does not mandate the registration of a will. Consequently, the mere absence of registration cannot be used as a ground to cast suspicion on the genuineness of a will.
A division bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the ruling while upholding the validity of a 1983 will executed by a man in favor of his sister. In doing so, the apex court rejected a multi-decade challenge brought by the man’s wife and children, who had alleged that the unregistered document was forged and fabricated.
A Decades-Old Family Dispute Over Ancestral Property
The roots of the legal battle trace back to a dispute over agricultural and ancestral properties located in Karnataka. The properties were owned by B. Sheena Nairi, who executed a will in 1983 bequeathing his estate to his sister, Laxmi Nairthy.
Following Nairi’s demise, his wife and children contested the will. They argued that the document was a fabrication, heavily relying on the fact that the will had never been registered with authorities, and questioned why the natural heirs had been entirely excluded from inheriting the property.
Representing the appellants, Sr. Advocate Ms. Meenakshi Arora, along with Advocate Mr. Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Advocate Ms. Anushka Rawal, Advocate Ms. Himani Singh, and Advocate Mr. C. Tanay Chaube (assisted by Advocate-on-Record Mrs. Bina Gupta), argued that the lack of registration and the unusual bypassing of the immediate family pointed to a manufactured document.
Countering these claims, the respondents’ legal team, led by Sr. Advocate Mr. Vinay Navare, alongside Advocate-on-Record Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Advocate Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Advocate Mr. Dipankar Singh, and Advocate Ms. Pavithra V., maintained that the will was executed voluntarily and met all statutory requirements of the law.
READ: Striking Off Tenant’s Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Not Automatic: Supreme Court
Non-Registration Is Not A Suspicious Circumstance: Supreme Court
Dismissing the arguments of the appellants, the Supreme Court emphasized that drawing adverse inferences purely from the non-registration of a will is entirely unwarranted under Indian jurisprudence.
“There is nothing in law which requires the registration of a will and wills are in a majority of cases not registered at all. To draw any inference against the genuineness of the will on the ground of its non-registration appears to us to be wholly unwarranted,” the Court observed.
In delivering the verdict, the bench relied closely on historical precedent, citing the apex court’s landmark 1953 ruling in Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi. The bench clarified that while suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a will do warrant closer judicial scrutiny, the lack of a registration stamp cannot be classified as one of those suspicious circumstances.
Bypassing Natural Heirs and Revenue Records Clarified
The judgment also addressed two other critical points frequently raised in property and testamentary disputes: the exclusion of immediate family members and the relevance of revenue records.
The bench underscored that the very purpose of creating a will is to alter the ordinary line of inheritance. Therefore, the exclusion of natural heirs—such as a spouse or children—does not automatically render a will suspect or invalid.
Furthermore, the Court addressed arguments regarding changes in local land records, reiterating an established legal principle: mutation entries made in revenue records are strictly for fiscal purposes (such as tax collection) and do not confer, create, or extinguish the legal title of a property.
Failure to Substantiate Forgery Claims Leads to Dismissal
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the sister’s legal team had successfully proved the execution of the 1983 will. A crucial attesting witness testified during the trial, confirming that B. Sheena Nairi was in a sound state of mind and had executed the document entirely of his own free will.
In contrast, the apex court noted that the appellants had failed to produce any concrete evidence to substantiate their claims of forgery or coercion.
Finding no valid reason to overturn the consistent findings of the trial court, the first appellate court, and the Karnataka High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, bringing a definitive end to the long-standing family dispute.
Case Title: PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND ORS. VERSUS LAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
Don’t Miss: Section 138 NI Act Applies Only to Drawer of Cheque, Not Joint Account Holder: Allahabad HC
Don’t Miss: SC: Extending Chargesheet Filing Time Without Hearing Accused Violates Right to Liberty
