Parvathi Nairthi (D) v. Laxmi Nairthy (D) 2026 INSC 521 - Unregistered Will - Exclusion Of Natural Heirs - Affidavit - Evidence
Will - 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. [Context: In this case, SC held 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.] (Para 34)
Will - 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. [Context: In this case, the SC noted that the contention that the Will is unregistered has no significant bearing on its validity]
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLI Rule 31 - 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. (Para 37)
Mutation Entries - 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.Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 3 - 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. (Para 38)
Case Info
Case name:Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) through LRs. and Ors.
Neutral citation:2026 INSC 521
Coram:Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Judgment date:21 May 2026 (New Delhi)
Case Law & Citations Referred
- On proof and validity of wills / suspicious circumstances– H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others, 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 and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 780– Shivakumar and Others v. Sharanabasappa and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 277– Meena Pradhan and Others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1198– Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Another v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 459– Ram Piari v. Bhagwant and Others, (1990) 3 SCC 364– Indu Bala Bose and Others v. Manindra Chandra Bose and Another, (1982) 1 SCC 20
- On mutation and title / revenue entries– Balwant Singh and Another v. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs and Others, (1997) 7 SCC 137
- On registration of wills– Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi and Others, (1953) 1 SCC 295
- On appellate judgments & Order XLI Rule 31 CPC– G. Amalorpavam and Others v. R. C. Diocese of Madurai and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 224
- On evidentiary value of affidavits– Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 465
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872– Section 68: Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested– Section 3: Definition of “evidence” (in context of affidavits not being evidence unless tested)
- Indian Succession Act, 1925– Section 63: Execution of unprivileged wills (requirements for valid execution and attestation)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)– Order XX Rule 12: Enquiry into mesne profits– Order XLI Rule 31: Contents, date and signature of appellate judgment– Order XIX CPC (read with Evidence Act) on use of affidavits as evidence
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964– Referred in context of mutation proceedings and notices by the Tehsildar
Three‑Sentence Brief Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the testator’s wife and children, affirming concurrent findings of the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court that the will executed by B. Sheena Nairi in favour of his sister, Laxmi Nairthy, was validly executed and duly proved under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act. The Court held that mere exclusion of natural heirs, delay in producing the will, non‑registration, and mutation in favour of the heirs did not constitute sufficient or real “suspicious circumstances” to vitiate the will, especially when an attesting witness supported execution and the opponents neither led proper evidence nor proved forgery. It further ruled that the first appellate court had substantially complied with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and that affidavits of attesting witnesses denying signatures, filed even before written statement and without opportunity of cross‑examination, had no evidentiary value.