Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy: Deprivation of Natural Heirs Not Amount to Suspicious Circumstance; A Will is not Required to be Proved with Mathematical Accuracy; Unregistered Will is Valid.

Jojy George Koduvath

Key Findings

The following are the key findings of the Supreme Court of India, in Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy (Ujjal Bhuyan, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.), 21 May 2026 (2026 INSC 521):

  • 1. A Will is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator’s property during his lifetime to be acted upon on his/her death, and carries with it an element of sanctity (Quoted Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan  2023 SCC OnLine SC 1198).
  • 2. A Will is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied (Quoted Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan  2023 SCC OnLine SC 1198).
  • 3. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence et cetera has to prove the same.
  • 4. Mutation does not confer title. (referred Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137).
  • 5. Contention that the Will is Unregistered has no significant bearing on its validity (Relied on Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi And Others (1953) 1 SCC 295).  
  • 6. 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 (Relied on Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee (1995) 4 SCC 459).  
  • 5. Any and every circumstance in the disposition of a Will is not a “suspicious” circumstance. A circumstance would be “suspicious” when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person (Referred Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose, (1982) 1 SCC 20)
  • 6. Mere non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC (the points for determination were not fixed by the Appellate Court) may not vitiate the judgment (Relied on G. Amalorpavam v. R. C. Diocese of Madurai, (2006) 3 SCC 224).
  • 7. An affidavit is not an “evidence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the same can be used as “evidence” only if, for sufficient reasons, the Court passes an order under Order XIX of CPC (Relyed on Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465).

Facts in a Nutshell

One B. Sheena Nairi, a Chartered Accountant, executed his last Will bequeathing the plaint schedule properties in the favour of his sister Laxmi Nairthy. After the death of the testator, upon the application of the wife of Nairi (Nairthy), the Tehsildar effected the mutation. The sister of the testator instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties under the Will, and an injunction.

The wife and children of the testator filed a written statement and contended –

  • that the Will is false and fabricated;
  • that the testator has never executed any such Will;
  • that the signature affixed on the said Will does not belong to him
  • that after the death of the testator, the said Will was created by his brothers, in collusion with each other and
  • that the plaint schedule properties were never in possession of the Plaintiff.

The Trial Court allowed the suit and opened an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure for mesne profits. The trial court found –

  • The Plaintiff produced PW2, the attesting witnesses to the Will. However, the wife and children of the testator –
    • did not adduce evidence,
    • had not produced any witness and
    • had not appeared for cross-examination.
    • had not specifically cross- examined the Plaintiff and PW2 to prove the Will as fraudulent.
  • The signature on the POA executed by the testator was accepted by the wife and children of the testator.  Thereby, the trial court concluded that the signatures were made by the same person when that accepted signature was compared with the signatures that appeared on every page of the Will, and it appeared to be the same, observing sufficient coordination in the writing, the placement of dots in the signature and the formation of the underline.

The appeals before the District Court and the High Court were dismissed. Hence the SLP.

Submissions of the Appellants (Defendants), in the SC

1. The Will produced is not legally acceptable on the grounds –

  • No explanation for the delay of 7 years in filing suit,
  • No explanation for the delay of 6 years after the mutation and conversion of the land in favour of the Appellants,
  • No explanation for exclusion of wife and children,
  • No explanation for excluding other assets.
  • The plaintiff never objected to the mutation, and no copy of the Will was produced at that time.
  • The witness to the Will did not know the place of death of the executant of the Will or about its contents.

2. The First Appellate Court failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC – for the ‘points for determination’ were not fixed.

Main Submissions the Respondents (Plaintiffs), in the SC

1.  Once specific allegations of forgery or fraud were made in respect of the Will and the Plaintiff had duly proved the execution of the Will, the burden shifted on the Appellants to prove their plea of forgery.

2. The Appellants never asked for sending the Will for examination by a handwriting expert nor chose to examine any expert witness; and, thus, the specific plea of forgery was not even attempted to be proved.

3. Additionally, it is submitted that the testator, in the Will itself, specifically stated that “I am doing no injustice to my wife and children or other relatives… I have given enough and more to my wife and children who are residing at Bombay” and thus, the wife and children had already been provided with sufficient properties.

Part I

Analysis of the Apex Court on the Validity and Execution of a Will

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:

  • “Section 68- Proof of Execution of document required by law to be attested— If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: xxx”

After quoting Section 68, the Apex Court (in Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy) referred the following passage in Meena Pradhan and Others v. Kamla Pradhan  2023 SCC OnLine SC 1198 –

  • “9. A Will is an instrument of testamentary disposition of property. It is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator’s property during his lifetime to be acted upon on his/her death and carries with it an element of sanctity. It speaks from the death of the testator. Since the testator/testatrix, at the time of testing the document for its validity, would not be available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed, stringent requisites for the proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to rule out the possibility of any manipulation.”

With regard to the principles pertaining to the validity and execution of a Will, it is pointed out that in Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan  2023 SCC OnLine SC 1198, the Court placed reliance on the following judgments – 

  • H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma 1958 SCC OnLine SC 31, 
  • Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur And Others(1994) 5 SCC 135, 
  • Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam(2003) 2 SCC 91, 
  • Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh (2009) 4 SCC 780, and 
  • Shivakumar And Others v. Sharanabasappa And Others(2021) 11 SCC 277, .

In Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy it is further pointed out – in Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan,  2023 SCC OnLine SC 1198, the Court deduced the following principles from the afore-stated decisions:

  • “10.1. The court has to consider two aspects : firstly, that the will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last will executed by him;
  • 10.2. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied.
  • 10.3. A will is required to fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:
  • .(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a will;
  • (b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;
  • (c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures;
  • (d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required;
  • 10.4. For the purpose of proving the execution of the will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined;
  • 10.5. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator’s signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator; 10.6. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with;
  • 10.7. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence;
  • 10.8. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator’s last will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier. 10.9. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and effect of the dispositions in the will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the will while acting on his own free will;
  • 10.10. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence et cetera has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation.
  • 10.11. Suspicious circumstances must be “real, germane and valid” and not merely “the fantasy of the doubting mind [Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277] ”. Whether a particular feature would qualify as “suspicious” would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance, for example, a shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit, etc.”

Findings on the Delay of 7 Years in Producing the Will

The Apex Court pointed out that the Plaintiff had given a representation before the Tehsildar soon after the death of the testator (in 1984) to mutate her name, and the said notice was received by the concerned authorities as evidenced by the postal certificate. Although there was no material which disclosed that the Plaintiff had produced a copy of the Will before the concerned authority, the said notice itself disclosed all relevant facts, including the execution of the Will in favour of the Plaintiff, without any delay.

Findings on Mutation – It Does Not Confer Title

As regards the contention of the Appellants that they had obtained mutation entries in the year 1984, it is held that it is well settled that such mutation entries do not confer title and are effected merely for fiscal purposes, namely, to enable the State to realise tax from the person whose name is recorded in the revenue records. The Court referred the following decision –

  • Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137.

Findings on the Contention – Will is Unregistered

The Apex Court held – this contention has no significant bearing on its validity, as this Court in the case of Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi And Others (1953) 1 SCC 295, has clearly held as under:

  • “6. …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.” 

Scope of ‘Deprivation of Natural Heirs‘ to Vitiate a Will

  • The contention of the Appellants that the Appellants, being the natural heirs of the testator, have been outrightly excluded without any reason and that such exclusion constitutes a suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will is legally untenable.
  • 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, as categorically held in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee (1995) 4 SCC 459. 
  • However, in the case of Ram Piari v. Bhagwant (1990) 3 SCC 364, it was held that prudence requires reason for denying the benefit of inheritance to natural heirs and an absence of it, though not invalidating the Will in all cases, shrouds the disposition with suspicious as it does not give inking to the mind of the testator to enable the Court to judge that disposition was a voluntary act. 

What are the Suspicious Circumstances that Vitiate a Will

While considering this issue i.e., what are the suspicious circumstances which may vitiate the disposition of a Will, the Apex Court referred Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose, (1982) 1 SCC 20, which pointed out as under:

  • “8. Needless to say that any and every circumstance is not a “suspicious” circumstance. A circumstance would be “suspicious” when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person.”

Conclusion in Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy – ‘The Will was Duly Executed’

The Apex Court came to the conclusion that ‘the Will was duly executed by the testator voluntarily out of his free will in a sound state of mind and the same stands proved through the testimony of one of the attesting witnesses’.  

It held further as under:

  • “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. 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. A testator is legally entitled to dispose of his property according to his own wishes, and unless the exclusion is accompanied by suspicious circumstances affecting the genuineness or due execution of a Will, such exclusion alone does not render a Will invalid. Thus, we are of the considered view that the exclusion of the natural heirs cannot be sufficient to vitiate the Will in question, particularly when the Will clearly specifies that the testator has not done any injustice to his wife, children, or other relatives, and that he has given enough to his wife and children who are residing at Bombay.”

Part II

Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC should not be Interpreted Technically

 In this case (Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy), the Appellants contended that the First Appellate Court, while deciding the first appeal, had not complied with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC.

Rule 31 reads as under:

  • “31. Contents, date and signature of judgment– The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state-
  • .(a) the points for determination;
  • (b) the decision thereon;
  • (c) the reasons for the decision; and
  • (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled, and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.”

The Apex Court held that mere non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void, and may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it, and the rule should not be interpreted technically to compromise substantial justice. The Court relied on G. Amalorpavam v. R. C. Diocese of Madurai, (2006) 3 SCC 224, which held as under:

  • “9. The question whether, in a particular case, there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC has to be determined on the nature of the judgment delivered in each case. 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 of the lower appellate court. It is no doubt desirable that the appellate court should comply with all the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. But if it is possible to make out from the judgment that there is substantial compliance with the said requirements and that justice has not thereby suffered, that would be sufficient.
  • Where the appellate court has considered the entire evidence on record and discussed the same in detail, come to any conclusion, and its findings are supported by reasons, even though the point has not been framed by the appellate court, there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the judgment is not in any manner vitiated by the absence of a point of determination. Where there is an honest endeavour on the part of the lower appellate court to consider the controversy between the parties and there is proper appraisement of the respective cases and weighing and balancing of the evidence, facts and the other considerations appearing on both sides is clearly manifest by the perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court, it would be a valid judgment even though it does not contain the points for determination. The object of the rule in making it incumbent upon the appellate court to frame points for determination and to cite reasons for the decision is to focus attention of the court on the rival contentions which arise for determination and also to provide litigant parties opportunity in understanding the ground upon which the decision is founded with a view to enable them to know the basis of the decision and if so considered appropriate and so advised to avail the remedy of second appeal conferred by Section 100 CPC.”

Part III

Evidentiary Value of Affidavits Renders the Will Invalid is Unsustainable.

Finally, the evidentiary value of affidavits of both the attesting witnesses to the Will was considered by the Apex Court. Appellants contended –

  • In the affidavits, both the attesting witnesses to the Will, denied that they had signed the same. 

The Apex Court relying on Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465, it is held as under:

  • “In this regard, this Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, has categorically held that an affidavit is not an “evidence” that it has been categorically held that an affidavit is not an “evidence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same can be used as “evidence” only if, for sufficient reasons, the Court passes an order under Order XIX of CPC and thus, the filing of an affidavit cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact situation. However, in a case where the deponent is available for cross-examination, and opportunity is given to the other side to cross-examine him, the same can be relied upon. In the present case, it is also important to note that those affidavits were filed even prior to the filing of the written statement, and the same has been rightly dealt by all the Courts, which questioned as to how the witnesses came to know about the enquiry regarding the validity of the Will despite no notice having been issued by the Court calling upon them to submit such affidavits. Thus, in view of the same, the affidavits filed by the attesting witnesses to the Will cannot be relied upon. 

Read also

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession: 

Revenue Records, Mutation

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment