PARVATHI NAIRTHI (DEAD) AND ORS.versusLAXMI NAIRTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

                  [2026] 6 S.C.R. 521 : 2026 INSC 521

                 Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors.
                                v.
            Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 6859 of 2014)
                                   21 May 2026
                [Ujjal Bhuyan and Vijay Bishnoi,* JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       Whether there are sufficient grounds that warrant interference with
       the concurrent findings of the facts of all the Courts upholding
       validity of the Will.

                                    Headnotes†
       Will – Validity of Will – Exclusion of natural heirs – One BSN-
       testator executed his last Will dated 15.05.1983 bequeathing all
       the plaint schedule properties in the favour of his only sister L,
       who is the plaintiff and respondent no. 1 herein, and cancelled
       the POA executed in favour of his brother-in-law – Testator
       passed away on 30.11.1983 – After the death of the testator,
       an application was made by his wife, being appellant no.1,
       before the Tehsildar, Udupi for the transfer of her husband’s
       properties in her favour – Mutation order was passed in favour
       of appellant no.1 – On 22.11.1990, L instituted a civil suit on
       the basis of the Will executed by the testator – The suit was
       filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute
       owner of the plaint schedule properties under the Will – The
       wife and children of the testator, namely appellant nos.1
       to 3 and respondent nos.2 to 4, filed a written statement and
       contended that the Will is false and fabricated – Trial Court
       allowed the suit of the plaintiff and declared plaintiff as owner
       of the plaint schedule property as per the Will – First Appellate
       Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court – Aggrieved, wife
       and children of the testator preferred a second appeal before
       the High Court, which was dismissed – Correctness:
       Held: After a careful perusal of the relevant material on record and
       applying the settled proposition of law, it is evident 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, PW2 by the Trial Court – This witness
* Author
522                                                                [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       categorically stated that the testator executed the Will in question in
       his presence, and that both he and the testator signed the Will in the
       presence of each other – Plaintiff had already given a representation
       before the Tehsildar, Udupi vide notice dated 10.02.1984 to mutate her
       name, and the said notice was received by the concerned authorities
       as evidenced by the postal certificate – As regards the contention
       of the appellants that they had obtained mutation entries in the year
       1984, 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 – 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, this Court is 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 – The concurrent findings of all the Courts
       have rightly given a well-reasoned decision upholding the validity of
       the Will and the same does not warrant interference of this Court.
       [Paras 30, 31, 34, 39]

                                  Case Law Cited
       Indu Bala Bose & Ors. v. Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr. [1982]
       1 SCR 1188 : (1982) 1 SCC 20; Ishwardeo Narain Singh v.
       Kamta Devi and Others (1953) 1 SCC 295; Meena Pradhan and
       Others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
       1198 – relied on.
       H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others
       [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 426 : 1958 SCC OnLine SC 31; Bhagwan
       Kaur v. Kartar Kaur and Others (1994) 5 SCC 135; Janki Narayan
       Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam [2002] Supp. 5 SCR 175 :
       (2003) 2 SCC 91; Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam
       Joykumar Singh and Others [2009] 4 SCR 157 : (2009) 4 SCC 780;
       Shivakumar and Others v. Sharanabasappa and Others [2020] 6
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                          523

                  Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v.
              Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors.

     SCR 666 : (2021) 11 SCC 277; Balwant Singh and Another v. Daulat
     Singh (Dead) By Lrs. and Others (1997) 7 SCC 137; Rabindra
     Nath Mukherjee and Another v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by
     Lrs. and Others (1995) 4 SCC 459; Ram Piari v. Bhagwant and
     Ors. [1990] 1 SCR 813 : (1990) 3 SCC 364; G. Amalorpavam
     and Others v. R. C. Diocese of Madurai and Others [2006] 2 SCR
     899 : (2006) 3 SCC 224; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State
     of Maharashtra and Others [2012] 10 SCR 994 : (2013) 4 SCC
     465 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
     Code of Civil Procedure,1908; Evidence Act, 1872.

                            List of Keywords
     Will; Suspicious Circumstances; Exclusion of Natural Heirs;
     Attesting Witness; Forgery and Fraud; Concurrent Findings of Fact.

                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6859 of 2014
     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2012 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in SA No. 1970 of 2012.

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Ms. Anushka
     Rawal, Ms. Himani Singh, C. Tanay Chaube, Mrs. Bina Gupta.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Pawan Kishore
     Singh, Dipankar Singh, Ms. Pavithra V.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1.   The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants challenging
     the Final Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2012 (hereinafter referred
     to as “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Karnataka
524                                                         [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) in Regular
       Second Appeal No. 1970 of 2012, by which the High Court dismissed
       the appeal preferred by the Appellants herein and thereby affirmed
       the judgments and orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the
       First Appellate Court.

       FACTUAL MATRIX
2.     The brief facts are that one B. Sheena Nairi was a Permanent Resident
       of Bombay and was working as a Chartered Accountant at five big
       reputed companies. Besides owning a residential flat in Bombay, he
       owned substantial other immovable properties situated at Brahmavar
       and Chanthar Village, Udupi Taluk, Karnataka, consisting primarily
       of agricultural lands and ancestral properties.
3.     B. Sheena Nairi had two sisters and two brothers, namely, Akkanni
       Nairi (elder sister), Laxmi Nairthy (younger sister), B. Jagannatha
       Nairi (elder brother), and B. Lakshmana Nairi (younger brother). B.
       Sheena Nairi had lost his elder sister, and after her demise, he took
       care of her two daughters and performed their marriages.
4.     B. Sheena Nairi was married to Parvathi Nairthi (Appellant No. 1),
       and they had five children, namely, Prabhakar Nairi (Appellant No. 2),
       Jayanth Nairi (Appellant No. 3), Leela Prabhu (Respondent No. 2),
       Sundara Nairi (Respondent No. 3), and Usha Nairi (Respondent
       No. 4) herein. For the management of certain properties, B. Sheena
       Nairi had executed a Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to
       as “the POA”) in favour of his brother-in-law Krishnayya Nairi on
       30.04.1960 and 08.04.1961.
5.     B. Sheena Nairi executed his last Will dated 15.05.1983 (hereinafter
       referred to as “the Will”) bequeathing all the plaint schedule
       properties in the favour of his only sister Laxmi Nairthy, who is
       the Plaintiff and Respondent No. 1 herein, and cancelled the POA
       executed in favour of his brother-in-law. B. Sheena Nairi (hereinafter
       referred to as “the testator”) passed away on 30.11.1983, at the
       age of 69 years, due to heart attack in Delhi.
6.     After the death of the testator, an application was made by his wife,
       being Appellant No. 1, before the Tehsildar, Udupi for the transfer of
       her husband’s properties in her favour. The Tehsildar, Udupi, vide
       order dated 01.02.1984, issued notice under the Karnataka Land
       Revenue Act, 1964 and called for the objections with respect to
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                          525

                  Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v.
              Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors.

     the said properties. Subsequently, the Tehsildar, Udupi, vide order
     dated 06.04.1984, passed mutation order transferring the properties
     in favour of Appellant No. 1.
7.   On 22.11.1990, Laxmi Nairthy, being the Plaintiff and Respondent
     No. 1, instituted a civil suit bearing O.S. No. 186 of 1990 before the
     Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udupi (hereinafter
     referred to as the “Trial Court”) on the basis of the Will executed by
     the testator. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the Plaintiff
     is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties under the
     Will; a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the wife and children
     of the testator from interfering with her peaceful possession of Item
     Nos. 1 to 3 of plaint schedule properties; recovery of possession of
     Schedule Item Nos. 4 to 12 of the plaint schedule properties, which
     had been given to Krishnayya Nairi under the Power of Attorney;
     mesne profits; and compensation till the delivery of possession.
8.   The wife and children of the testator, namely Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and
     Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, filed a written statement and contended that
     the Will is false and fabricated; that the testator has never executed
     any such Will; and that the signature affixed on the said Will does
     not belong to him. It was further contended that after the death of
     the testator, the said Will was created by his brothers, namely, B.
     Jagannatha Nairi and Lakshmana Nairi, in collusion with each other
     and that the plaint schedule properties were never in possession of
     the Plaintiff and the testator had never revoked the POA executed
     in favour of Krishnayya Nairi.

     JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
9.   The Trial Court, vide Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2008,
     allowed the suit of the Plaintiff and declared that the Plaintiff is the
     owner of the plaint schedule property as per the Will and ordered to
     handover the possession of Schedule Item Nos. 4 to 12 of the plaint
     schedule property to the Plaintiff and opened enquiry under Order
     XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to
     as “CPC”) for mesne profits. The Trial Court held that:-
     a.    The Plaintiff produced her brother B. Jagannatha Nairi-PW2, who
           was one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. PW2 categorically
           deposed that the testator, being his brother, had executed the
           Will in his presence and that the signature appearing on the Will
526                                                          [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            belonged to the testator. However, the wife and children of the
            testator, except filing the written statement, had not produced
            any witness and had not appeared for cross-examination in order
            to prove their allegations. On their behalf, only the POA holder
            appeared and had given his evidence which was doubtful. Also,
            the wife and the children had not specifically cross-examined
            the Plaintiff and B. Jagannatha Nairi-PW2 to prove the Will as
            fraudulent.
       b.   With regard to the dispute concerning signature of the testator
            on the Will, it was held that the signature in the POA executed
            by the testator was accepted by the wife and children of the
            testator and when that accepted signature was compared with
            the signatures appeared on every page of the Will, it appeared
            to be the same, observing sufficient coordination in the writing,
            the placement of dots in the signature and the formation of
            underline, thereby concluding that the signatures were made
            by the same person.
       c.   Further, it was also held that the testator, during his lifetime,
            executed the POA in respect to Schedule Item Nos. 4 to 12
            of the plaint schedule property in favour of Krishnayya Nairi
            through licence authority in 1961. However, the said POA was
            revoked after the death of the testator and Krishnayya Nairi had
            the possession of the said property as a licensee only. Except
            accepting the possession of the schedule property, Krishnayya
            Nairi had not denied the ownership of the property of the testator
            and had not prayed for any authority or ownership and so, the
            Plaintiff was entitled to recover the possession of Schedule
            Item Nos. 4 to 12 as per the Will.
       d.   However, it was observed that due to non-production of any
            reliable documents or any complaint lodged by the Plaintiff before
            the police regarding the alleged illegal interference of the wife
            and children of the testator, and in view of the fact that no eye
            witnesses were produced to prove the said incident, no case
            was made out for grant of a stay order in favour of the Plaintiff.
10. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2008, the wife
    and children of the testator preferred an appeal bearing R.A. No.
    4 of 2009 before the District & Sessions Judge at Udupi. However,
    the said appeal was transferred to the Fast Track Court, Udupi
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                      527

                  Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v.
              Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors.

     (hereinafter referred to as “the First Appellate Court”) for disposal
     in accordance with law.

     JUDGMENT OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT
11. The First Appellate Court, vide Judgment and Decree dated
    06.08.2012, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the
    Trial Court. The First Appellate Court observed that the Plaintiff had
    already given her representation without any delay to the Tehsildar,
    Udupi on 10.02.1984 which disclosed all relevant facts including
    execution of the Will in her favour. Further, the wife and children of
    the testator, despite being the best persons to deny the plaint, had
    not stepped into the witness box to deny the contents of the plaint.
    Furthermore, the First Appellate Court relied upon the evidence of
    B. Jagannatha Nairi and inferred that the testator and the attesting
    witness had signed the Will in the presence of each other. Moreover,
    it was held that the Trial Court had rightly compared the disputed
    signature of the testator on the Will with the admitted signature on
    the POA, and since the Trial Court itself possesses such power,
    there was no necessity of a handwriting expert. Accordingly, the First
    Appellate Court concluded that no interference with the findings of
    the Trial Court was warranted.
12. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 06.08.2012, the wife
    and children of the testator preferred a second appeal bearing R.S.A
    No. 1970 of 2012 before the High Court of Karnataka.

     IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
13. The High Court, vide Final Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2012,
    dismissed the second appeal. The High Court held that it was not
    the case of the Appellants that the First Appellate Court had failed
    to consider any particular ground or point urged by the Appellants.
    It was further observed that the First Appellate Court, in order to
    confirm the judgment of the Trial Court, had given detailed reasoning
    on each of the grounds canvassed in the appeal, though the points
    for consideration may not have been properly formulated. Therefore,
    the High Court held that merely on the technical grounds that the
    points formulated by the First Appellate Court were not in conformity
    with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, the findings of the First Appellate
    Court could not be set aside. With regard to the contention that the
528                                                           [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       wife and the children of the testator had been excluded from the
       properties of the testator without any reason, the High Court held
       that the Will itself clearly recited that the testator had already given
       sufficient properties to his wife and children. However, for reasons
       best known to them, the wife and children of the testator did not
       enter the witness box and failed to furnish any particulars regarding
       the movable or immovable properties or cash allegedly given to
       them by the testator. Even the evidence of B. Jagannatha Nairi had
       not been seriously challenged by the Appellants and that it was not
       difficult for the Appellants to summon another attestor to the Will,
       if he had not attested the Will. Therefore, the High Court held that
       no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal
       and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
14. Being aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the Appellants are
    before us.

       SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
15. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf
    of the Appellants submitted that the suit was filed by the Plaintiff
    after 7 years of execution of the Will and 6 years after mutation
    and conversion of the land in favour of the Appellants, for which
    no explanation was given by the Plaintiff. Even no explanation was
    given as to why the testator would make a Will only for the lands
    and not for other assets, in favour of the Plaintiff, to the exclusion
    of his own wife and children.
16. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Respondent
    No. 1 never objected to the mutation taking place in favour of the
    Appellants before the Tehsildar, Udupi in 1984 and no copy of the
    Will was produced at that time. No explanation was also given to
    the document filed by the Plaintiff showing practice of signatures of
    the testator.
17. Furthermore, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
    testimony of B. Jagannatha Nairi, the attesting witness in the Will,
    stated the place of death of the testator to be Bombay and that he
    did not know about the contents of the Will.
18. Moreover, it is submitted that the Impugned Judgment categorically
    stated that the points of consideration framed by the First Appellate
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                          529

                  Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v.
              Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors.

     Court were “general” in nature and thereafter, erroneously arrived at
     the conclusion that all the Courts had scrutinised the entire evidence
     and facts on record, treating the same as “mere technicalities”. Thus,
     the First Appellate Court failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31
     of CPC.

     SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
19. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
    the Respondents submitted that 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. However, 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.
20. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the proceedings
    throughout were initiated by Ganesha @ Ganapayya Nairi, namely
    Respondent No. 5, whereas the legal heirs of the testator, namely
    his wife and children, remained passive throughout the proceedings.
    This is evident from the fact that the written statement was signed,
    verified and affirmed solely by Respondent No. 5; only Respondent
    No. 5 was examined as DW1; and the application for stay before the
    First Appellate Court was verified and affirmed by Respondent No. 5
    alone. It is submitted that the same was for protecting his interest in
    the property as the testator had given possession of the property to the
    father of Respondent No. 5 as the POA holder and he was enjoying
    the possession. But the real beneficiaries of succession, namely the
    wife and children of the testator, did not enter the witness box either
    to prove the plea of forgery or to deny the execution of the Will.
21. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that Mohammad
    Saheb, one of the attestors of the Will, filed an affidavit on 20.12.1990,
    which was even prior to the filing of the written statement by the
    Appellants on 18.02.1991. Therefore, the First Appellate Court rightly
    observed that, when the Trial Court had not issued any notice to him,
    the question arose as to how he came to know about the pendency
    of the suit and for what reason he had filed the said affidavit.
22. Furthermore, it is also submitted that, sometime after the death of
    the testator, the Plaintiff made an application dated 10.02.1984 to
530                                                               [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       the Tehsildar, Udupi requesting him to change the patta of the plaint
       schedule properties in her name in the mutation register. Copies of the
       said application were also forwarded to the Secretary, Bramhavara,
       Udupi Taluk, the Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura, and the
       Revenue Inspector, Bramhavara. However, the Plaintiff came to know
       that Krishnayya Nairi had managed to get the names of the wife and
       children of the testator entered in the records of rights in respect
       of the plaint properties without issuing any notice to the Plaintiff or
       conducting any enquiry. It is submitted that only in October, 1990,
       when Krishnayya Nairi along with his son, Ganesha @ Ganapayya
       Nairi, attempted to threaten the Plaintiff and cut the standing crops,
       the Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. Therefore, there was no
       delay in producing the Will before the Trial Court.
23. 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.
24. Moreover, it is submitted that in the cross-examination of B.
    Jagannatha Nairi, being the only living attesting witness to the Will,
    he specifically stated that his brother’s daughter came to his house
    and took his signature on a paper, the contents of which were not
    informed to him and thus, the affidavit of B. Jagannatha Nairi relied
    upon by the Appellants is a self-created affidavit by the Appellants
    and thus, cannot be relied upon.

       ANALYSIS
25. We have heard both the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
    behalf of the parties and have perused the relevant material placed
    on record.
26. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether there are
    sufficient grounds that warrant interference with the concurrent
    findings of the facts of all the Courts upholding validity of the Will.

       Principles for the Validity and Execution of a Will
27. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is pertinent to refer to
    the relevant provisions governing the validity and execution of a
    Will. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follow-
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                               531

                     Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v.
                 Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors.

            “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”
28. It has been categorically stated in the case of Meena Pradhan and
    Others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another1 that-
            “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.”
29. With regard to the principles pertaining to the validity and execution
    of a Will, reliance is placed on the judgments passed by 3 Judges
    Bench and 2 Judges Bench of this Court in H. Venkatachala
    Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma And Others2, Bhagwan Kaur v.
    Kartar Kaur And Others 3, Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan
    Namdeo Kadam 4 , Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v.
    Yumnam Joykumar Singh And Others5, and Shivakumar And
    Others v. Sharanabasappa And Others6, from which the following
    principles required for proving the validity and execution of a Will
    may be deduced:
            “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;


1   2023 SCC OnLine SC 1198.
2   1958 SCC OnLine SC 31.
3   (1994) 5 SCC 135.
4   (2003) 2 SCC 91.
5   (2009) 4 SCC 780.
6   (2021) 11 SCC 277.
532                                                       [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


       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;
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                               533

                   Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v.
               Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors.

           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.”
30. Coming back to the present factual matrix, after a careful perusal of
    the relevant material on record and applying the settled proposition
    of law, it is evident 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,
    namely B. Jagannatha Nairi, who was examined as PW2 by the Trial
    Court. This witness categorically stated that the testator executed the
534                                                          [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       Will in question in his presence, and that both he and the testator
       signed the Will in the presence of each other.

       Claim of Title Based on a Will
31. The contention of the Appellants that there was an unexplained
    delay of 7 years in producing the Will after the death of the testator
    is liable to be rejected. The said contention has been considered by
    all the Courts, which concurrently held that the Plaintiff had already
    given a representation before the Tehsildar, Udupi vide notice dated
    10.02.1984 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 the copy of the Will before the concerned authority,
    but the said notice itself disclosed all relevant facts, including the
    execution of the Will in favour of the Plaintiff, without any delay. All
    the Courts have duly examined the said issue thoroughly and have
    recorded concurrent findings and thus, we are also in conformity with
    the same. As regards the contention of the Appellants that they had
    obtained mutation entries in the year 1984, 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, as held in Balwant
    Singh And Another v. Daulat Singh (Dead) By LRs. And Others7.
    Also, the contention that the Will is unregistered has no significant
    bearing on its validity, as this Court in the case of Ishwardeo Narain
    Singh v. Kamta Devi And Others8 has clearly held that:-
            “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 Suspicious Circumstances to Vitiate a Will
32. The contention of the Appellants that the Appellants, being the natural
    heirs of the testator, have been outrightly excluded without any


7   (1997) 7 SCC 137.
8   (1953) 1 SCC 295.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                            535

                      Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v.
                  Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors.

      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 and Another v.
      Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs and Others9. However, in the
      case of Ram Piari v. Bhagwant and Ors.10, this Court also 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.
33. This brings us to the next issue i.e., what are the suspicious
    circumstances which may vitiate the disposition of a Will. In Indu
    Bala Bose & Ors. v. Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr.11, this Court
    held that-
             “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.”
34. With regard to the prudence to be drawn while determining the
    suspicious circumstances, all the Courts have unambiguously opined
    that the Will in question was validly executed. 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


9    (1995) 4 SCC 459.
10   (1990) 3 SCC 364.
11   (1982) 1 SCC 20.
536                                                            [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       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.

       Compliance of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC
35. The contention of the Appellants that the First Appellate Court, while
    deciding the first appeal, has not complied with Order XLI Rule 31
    of CPC is hereby rejected. Rule 31 reads thus-
             “Rule 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.”
36. This Court in G. Amalorpavam And Others v. R. C. Diocese of
    Madurai and Others12 also held that:-
             “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


12   (2006) 3 SCC 224.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                          537

                  Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v.
              Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors.

           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.”
37. In view of the above position of law, we are of the view 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 findings
    in the decision passed by the First Appellate Court have properly
    scrutinised the evidence on record, even if the points of consideration
    are general, and thus, the same does not suffer from any illegality.

     Evidentiary Value of Affidavits
38. The contention of the Appellants that the affidavits of both the
    attesting witnesses to the Will, denying that they had signed the same,
538                                                           [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       render the Will invalid is unsustainable. In this regard, this Court
       in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and
       Others13 has 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.

       CONCLUSION
39. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the concurrent findings of all
    the Courts have rightly given a well-reasoned decision upholding
    the validity of the Will and the same does not warrant interference
    of this Court.
40. For the aforesaid reasons, we affirm the Impugned Judgment and
    hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as
    to costs.

       Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan



13   (2013) 4 SCC 465.