Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Othersv.Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRS and Others

Legal Analysis: Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Others v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 521

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Bishnoi & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Date of Decision: May 21, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12822 of 2013 against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 15.11.2012 in Regular Second Appeal No. 1970 of 2012.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The testator, B. Sheena Nairi, executed a Will on 15.05.1983 bequeathing all his properties to his only sister, Laxmi Nairthy (plaintiff/respondent), to the exclusion of his wife and children. After his death, the wife obtained mutation of the properties in her name. The sister filed a suit for declaration of title based on the Will. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court affirmed. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the further appeal, holding that: (i) the Will was duly proved by examining one attesting witness (PW2), who deposed that the testator executed the Will in his presence and that both signed in each other’s presence; (ii) the exclusion of natural heirs does not by itself constitute a suspicious circumstance, especially when the Will stated that the testator had already given sufficient properties to his wife and children; (iii) non-registration of a Will has no bearing on its validity; (iv) the delay in producing the Will was explained by the plaintiff’s representation to the Tehsildar in 1984; (v) mutation entries do not confer title; (vi) the First Appellate Court had substantially complied with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, and mere technical non-compliance does not vitiate the judgment; (vii) affidavits filed by attesting witnesses denying their signatures, filed before the written statement, could not be relied upon as they were not subject to cross-examination and their provenance was suspect.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Others v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 521

Civil Appeal No.: 6859 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12822 of 2013)

Bench: Justice Vijay Bishnoi & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Date of Decision: May 21, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Final Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2012 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No. 1970 of 2012.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 (proof of execution of document required by law to be attested – at least one attesting witness must be called), Section 3 (definition of evidence – affidavit not evidence unless under Order XIX CPC).

• Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 (execution of unprivileged wills – signature by testator, attestation by two or more witnesses, each witness signing in presence of testator).

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 31 (contents of appellate judgment – points for determination, decision, reasons), Order XIX (affidavits as evidence), Order XX Rule 12 (mesne profits).

• Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 – Mutation entries (revenue records for fiscal purposes, do not confer title).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan – Will carries an element of sanctity; stringent requisites for proof to rule out manipulation.

• H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma – Principles for proof of will: testator must be of sound mind, free will; attesting witness must prove due execution; if suspicious circumstances exist, propounder must dispel them.

• Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur – Same principles.

• Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam – Same principles.

• Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh – Same principles.

• Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa – Suspicious circumstances must be "real, germane and valid", not merely "fantasy of the doubting mind".

• Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh – Mutation entries do not confer title; they are for fiscal purposes.

• Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi – Registration of a will is not required by law; non-registration does not invalidate a will.

• Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee – Deprivation of natural heirs does not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea of a will is to interfere with the normal line of succession.

• Ram Piani v. Bhagwant – Prudence requires reason for denying inheritance to natural heirs; absence of reason may shroud the disposition with suspicion.

• Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose – A circumstance is suspicious when it is not normal or not normally expected in a normal situation.

• G. Amalorpavam v. R. C. Diocese of Madurai – Non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC does not vitiate the judgment if there is substantial compliance and the appellate court has considered the entire evidence.

• Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra – An affidavit is not "evidence" under Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless the court passes an order under Order XIX CPC permitting it to be used as evidence.

3. Relevant Facts

B. Sheena Nairi (testator) was a Chartered Accountant in Bombay, owning properties in Karnataka. He had two sisters and two brothers. He took care of his elder sister’s daughters after her death. He was married to Parvathi Nairthi (Appellant No.1) and had five children.

On 15.05.1983, the testator executed a Will bequeathing all his properties to his only sister, Laxmi Nairthy (Plaintiff/Respondent No.1), cancelling an earlier Power of Attorney executed in favour of his brother-in-law. The testator died on 30.11.1983.

After his death, the wife (Parvathi) applied to the Tehsildar for mutation of properties in her name. The Tehsildar issued notices, and on 06.04.1984 passed a mutation order transferring properties to the wife. The plaintiff (sister) had on 10.02.1984 submitted a representation to the Tehsildar disclosing the Will and requesting mutation in her name, but no copy of the Will was produced at that time.

On 22.11.1990, the plaintiff filed a suit (O.S. No. 186 of 1990) seeking declaration of title based on the Will, perpetual injunction, recovery of possession, and mesne profits.

The wife and children filed a written statement contending that the Will was false and fabricated, and that the signature did not belong to the testator.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, relying on the testimony of B. Jagannatha Nairi (brother of testator, examined as PW2), who was one of the attesting witnesses. PW2 deposed that the testator executed the Will in his presence and that both signed in the presence of each other. The Trial Court also compared the signature on the Will with the admitted signature on the POA and found them to be the same. The wife and children did not enter the witness box; only a power of attorney holder appeared.

The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether the Will dated 15.05.1983 was validly executed and proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act.

Issue No. 2: Whether the exclusion of the natural heirs (wife and children) without any reason constituted a suspicious circumstance vitiating the Will.

Issue No. 3: Whether the delay in producing the Will and the mutation entries in favour of the wife affected the validity of the Will.

Issue No. 4: Whether the First Appellate Court’s judgment was vitiated for non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

Issue No. 5: Whether the affidavits filed by the attesting witnesses denying their signatures could be relied upon to invalidate the Will.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The Will was duly proved under Section 68 of the Evidence Act (Paras 27-30).

The Court reiterated that a Will is an instrument of testamentary disposition carrying sanctity. To prove its execution, at least one attesting witness who is alive and capable of giving evidence must be examined. In this case, the plaintiff examined B. Jagannatha Nairi (PW2), who was the testator’s brother and one of the attesting witnesses. He categorically deposed that the testator executed the Will in his presence, that the signature belonged to the testator, and that both he and the testator signed in the presence of each other. The wife and children did not enter the witness box to deny the Will. The Trial Court also compared the disputed signature on the Will with the admitted signature on the POA and concluded they were made by the same person. Therefore, the Will was duly proved.

B. Exclusion of natural heirs does not automatically create a suspicious circumstance (Paras 31-34).

The Court held that mere deprivation of natural heirs does not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea of a Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. However, prudence requires that the testator should have a reason for excluding natural heirs, and absence of any reason may create suspicion. In this case, the Will itself stated: “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.” Therefore, the testator had provided a reason – he had already given sufficient properties to his wife and children. The exclusion was not unexplained. Consequently, no suspicious circumstance arose.

C. Delay in producing the Will was adequately explained; mutation entries do not confer title (Paras 31-32).

The plaintiff had submitted a representation to the Tehsildar on 10.02.1984, within three months of the testator’s death, disclosing the Will and requesting mutation. Although a copy of the Will was not produced at that time, the representation itself disclosed all relevant facts without delay. The mutation obtained by the wife in 1984 was irrelevant to title because mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and do not confer title (citing Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh). Non-registration of a Will has no bearing on its validity (citing Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi).

D. Non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC does not vitiate the judgment if there is substantial compliance (Paras 35-37).

The First Appellate Court may not have framed points for determination in the exact format prescribed by Order XLI Rule 31, but it had considered the entire evidence on record, discussed it in detail, and given reasons for its findings. Relying on G. Amalorpavam v. R. C. Diocese of Madurai, the Court held that substantial compliance with the rule is sufficient; technical non-compliance does not vitiate the judgment, especially when the second appellate court (High Court) was able to ascertain the findings.

E. Affidavits filed by attesting witnesses before the written statement could not be relied upon (Para 38).

The appellants relied on affidavits filed by the attesting witnesses (including PW2) stating that they had not signed the Will. The Court held that an affidavit is not “evidence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless the court passes an order under Order XIX CPC. Moreover, these affidavits were filed even before the written statement was filed, and the witnesses were not produced for cross-examination. The Trial Court also noted that there was no notice issued to these witnesses to file affidavits, raising suspicion about how they came to know about the proceedings. Therefore, these affidavits could not invalidate the Will.

F. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with (Para 39).

The Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court had all concurrently found the Will to be valid. The Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• A testator is legally entitled to dispose of his property according to his own wishes. Exclusion of natural heirs, by itself, is not a suspicious circumstance if the Will provides a reason for such exclusion (e.g., the testator had already given sufficient properties to them).

• The statement in a Will that the testator “has given enough and more” to his wife and children is a sufficient explanation to dispel any suspicion arising from their exclusion.

• Mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes (to enable the State to realize tax) and do not confer title. The fact that a party has obtained mutation entries does not affect the validity of a Will or the title derived thereunder.

• Non-registration of a Will is not a ground to doubt its genuineness, as registration is not mandatory for a will.

• The requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC (points for determination, decision, reasons) is to ensure that the appellate court focuses on the rival contentions. However, if the appellate court has substantially complied with the rule – i.e., it has considered the entire evidence, discussed it, and given reasons – the judgment is not vitiated by technical non-compliance.

• An affidavit filed by a witness without the court’s order under Order XIX CPC, and without the witness being produced for cross-examination, has no evidentiary value. Such affidavits cannot be used to prove that an attesting witness denied signing a will, especially when they were filed before the written statement and the witness was not subjected to cross-examination.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court first summarised the factual matrix and the concurrent findings of the courts below. It then set out the legal principles governing the proof of a will, referring to a catena of judgments including H. Venkatachala Iyengar, Shivakumar, and others. The Court noted that the propounder of the will must prove its due execution, and if there are suspicious circumstances, the onus becomes heavier.

The Court then examined the evidence of PW2 (B. Jagannatha Nairi), the attesting witness. He was the testator’s brother and had no interest hostile to the will. He deposed that the testator executed the will in his presence and that both signed in each other’s presence. The Court noted that the wife and children did not enter the witness box, nor did they cross-examine PW2 effectively to prove the alleged forgery. They did not even seek the opinion of a handwriting expert.

On the issue of suspicious circumstances, the Court observed that the will itself stated that the testator had already given sufficient properties to his wife and children. Therefore, the exclusion was not unexplained. The Court distinguished Ram Piani (where the will gave no reason for exclusion) and held that in the present case, the will contained a valid reason.

The Court then addressed the procedural objections. It held that the delay in producing the will was explained by the plaintiff’s 1984 representation to the Tehsildar. The mutation entries in favour of the wife were irrelevant because mutation does not confer title. The non-registration of the will was irrelevant. The First Appellate Court’s judgment substantially complied with Order XLI Rule 31; the High Court could ascertain its findings. The affidavits filed by the attesting witnesses were not evidence because they were not subject to cross-examination and were filed without court orders.

Finally, the Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the appeal.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a comprehensive restatement of the law on proof of wills. It correctly applies the settled principle that the propounder must prove due execution by examining at least one attesting witness, and that the testator’s exclusion of natural heirs does not automatically vitiate the will. The Court’s reliance on the specific recital in the will (“I have given enough and more to my wife and children”) to dispel suspicion is fact-specific but legally sound. The judgment also correctly holds that mutation entries are irrelevant to title and that non-registration of a will is immaterial. The Court’s refusal to give evidentiary value to affidavits filed without cross-examination is consistent with the Evidence Act.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly discuss whether the testator was in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution, apart from the attesting witness’s testimony. However, the attesting witness was the testator’s brother and was present at the time of execution, and his testimony was not effectively challenged. The Court also did not discuss the possibility that the testator’s wife and children might have been unaware of the will until after his death, which could have explained their failure to challenge the mutation. However, the Court noted that they did not enter the witness box despite being the best persons to deny the will, which was a valid adverse inference.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all will disputes where natural heirs are excluded. It clarifies that a will is not invalid merely because it deprives natural heirs; the testator must have a reason, and if the will itself provides that reason (e.g., “I have already given them enough”), that is sufficient to dispel suspicion. It also reaffirms that mutation entries are not evidence of title and that affidavits not subject to cross-examination have no evidentiary value. The judgment also provides guidance on the application of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – substantial compliance is sufficient, and technical defects do not vitiate the judgment.

9. Final Outcome

The Civil Appeal was dismissed.

• The Supreme Court affirmed the Impugned Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 15.11.2012.

• The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court upholding the validity of the Will dated 15.05.1983 were confirmed.

• The plaintiff (sister of the testator) was declared the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties under the Will.

• No order as to costs.

• Pending applications stood disposed of.

10. Practical Application

For a propounder of a will (the person claiming under the will): You must prove the will by examining at least one attesting witness who can testify that the testator signed the will in his/her presence and that the witness signed in the presence of the testator. If possible, examine the attesting witness who is most credible (e.g., a family member with no hostile interest). If the will excludes natural heirs, ensure that the will contains a reason for such exclusion (e.g., “I have already provided for them”). Also, produce the will promptly after the testator’s death to avoid allegations of delay. If mutation entries are obtained by other heirs, remember that mutation does not confer title; you can still file a suit based on the will.

For a caveator or objector to a will (natural heir excluded): To challenge a will, you must lead positive evidence of forgery, fraud, undue influence, or lack of testamentary capacity. Mere denial is insufficient. You should enter the witness box and testify. You can also seek a handwriting expert’s opinion if you dispute the testator’s signature. If you rely on affidavits of attesting witnesses denying their signatures, ensure that those witnesses are produced for cross-examination; otherwise, the affidavits will have no evidentiary value. Also, argue that the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances – e.g., the testator was of feeble mind, the propounder took a leading role in the execution, or the disposition is unjust and unexplained.

For a lawyer drafting a will: Ensure that the will is signed by the testator in the presence of two attesting witnesses, and that each witness signs in the presence of the testator (though the witnesses need not be present at the same time). Record the testator’s reason for excluding natural heirs, if any, in the will itself (e.g., “I have already given sufficient properties to my wife and children by way of gifts/settlements”). This will help dispel suspicion. Advise the testator to keep the will in a safe place and inform the executor. Registration of the will is optional but may help prove its genuineness.

For a court trying a will suit: Follow the two-stage process: first, determine whether the propounder has proved due execution under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act (by examining at least one attesting witness). Second, if there are suspicious circumstances, require the propounder to dispel them by giving a cogent explanation. Suspicious circumstances include: a shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unjust disposition, the propounder taking a leading part in the making of the will, etc. However, mere exclusion of natural heirs is not a suspicious circumstance if the will provides a reason. If the objector alleges forgery, the burden is on the objector to prove it.

For a legal services authority (NALSA/SLSA) assisting indigent litigants in will disputes: If you are representing an excluded natural heir, gather evidence of the testator’s mental state (medical records, testimony of doctors, neighbours), the propounder’s conduct (whether he/she exerted undue influence), and any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution. If you are representing the propounder, ensure that the attesting witness is available and that the will is produced promptly. If the will is old, seek to explain the delay in production.

11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (Proof of will – Para 29, quoting Meena Pradhan):
“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.”

Line 2 (Suspicious circumstances – Para 33, quoting Indu Bala Bose):
“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.”

Line 3 (Exclusion of natural heirs – Para 32):
“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.”

Line 4 (Reason for exclusion – Para 32, quoting Ram Piani):
“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.”

Line 5 (Mutation entries – Para 31):
“It is well settled that such 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.”

Line 6 (Non-registration of will – Para 31, quoting Ishwardeo Narain Singh):
“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.”

Line 7 (Substantial compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 – Para 36, quoting G. Amalorpavam):
“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.”

Line 8 (Evidentiary value of affidavit – Para 38, quoting Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan):
“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.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a propounder of a will who has excluded natural heirs: Do not merely rely on the attesting witness’s testimony. If the will does not contain a reason for excluding natural heirs, be prepared to adduce additional evidence to explain why the testator chose to exclude them. This could include evidence that the testator had already gifted or transferred properties to them during his lifetime, or that there was estrangement. In the absence of any explanation, the court may treat the exclusion as a suspicious circumstance. If the will itself recites that the testator has already given enough, that is sufficient.

For an objector (natural heir) challenging a will: Do not assume that mere exclusion will invalidate the will. You must prove the existence of suspicious circumstances that go beyond mere exclusion. For example, show that the testator was of unsound mind, that the signature is forged (obtain a handwriting expert’s opinion), that the propounder exerted undue influence, or that the attesting witnesses were not present at the time of execution. Also, you must enter the witness box yourself. If you do not enter the witness box, the court may draw an adverse inference that you could not deny the will on oath. If you obtain affidavits from attesting witnesses denying their signatures, ensure that those witnesses are produced for cross-examination; otherwise, the affidavits will be of no value.

For a lawyer drafting a will for a client who wishes to exclude natural heirs: Include a recital in the will explaining the reason for exclusion. For example: “I have already provided for my wife and children by way of settlement deeds/gifts/payments during my lifetime. Hence, I bequeath my remaining properties to my sister.” This recital will help dispel any suspicion if the will is challenged. Also, ensure that the will is executed in the presence of two attesting witnesses who are not beneficiaries under the will (if possible), and that the witnesses sign in the presence of the testator. Keep the original will in a safe place, and give a copy to the executor.

For a court hearing a will dispute: When the will excludes natural heirs, examine whether the will itself provides a reason. If it does, that reason may be sufficient to dispel suspicion unless the objector adduces evidence to show that the reason was false or that other suspicious circumstances exist. If the will does not provide a reason, the court may require the propounder to explain the exclusion through extrinsic evidence. However, the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies on the objector; the propounder is not required to prove the absence of suspicious circumstances unless they are raised. Also, if the attesting witness is alive and capable of giving evidence, he must be examined. Failure to examine any attesting witness will make the will inadmissible in evidence (Section 68 of the Evidence Act). The court can compare signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, but that should be done cautiously and preferably with the aid of an expert if there is serious dispute.

For a litigant who has obtained mutation entries in his favour after the testator’s death: Do not rely on mutation entries as proof of title. They are only for revenue purposes. If a will is produced that bequeaths the property to another person, the mutation entries will not protect you. You must challenge the will in a civil suit. Conversely, if you are the beneficiary under a will, the fact that another person obtained mutation entries does not affect your title; you can file a suit for declaration based on the will.

For a party who has filed an affidavit of a witness without court order: If you file an affidavit under Order XIX CPC, you must also ensure that the deponent is produced for cross-examination if the other side requests. If the affidavit is filed without the court’s permission, it will not be treated as evidence. In a will dispute, if you obtain an affidavit from an attesting witness denying his signature, you must either produce that witness for cross-examination or seek to have the affidavit admitted under Order XIX after giving the other side an opportunity to cross-examine. Otherwise, the affidavit will have no evidentiary value.