By Team @ Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.
Reviewed by: Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. Legal Team
Last Updated: 14 June 2026
Quick Answer
In Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) & Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors., decided on 21 May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld a Will through which a testator bequeathed property to his sister instead of his wife and children. The Court held that the Will had been properly proved through an attesting witness and that neither non-registration nor exclusion of natural heirs was sufficient to invalidate it. The judgment provides useful guidance on proof of Wills, suspicious circumstances and the evidentiary value of mutation records.
Why This Judgment Matters
Disputes over Wills often arise when close family members are excluded from inheritance. Courts are then required to determine whether the document was genuinely executed, whether the testator acted voluntarily and whether any suspicious circumstances exist.
This judgment is important because it explains how courts evaluate such challenges. The Supreme Court examined whether an unregistered Will could be relied upon, whether exclusion of natural heirs automatically creates suspicion and whether revenue records can override rights created by a valid Will.
The ruling is relevant for property owners, beneficiaries under Wills, legal heirs, executors and lawyers handling succession disputes. It also reinforces that courts will focus on proof of execution and surrounding circumstances rather than assumptions based solely on family relationships.
Brief Facts
The dispute concerned properties owned by B. Sheena Nairi, who executed a Will on 15 May 1983 in favour of his sister, Laxmi Nairthy. The Will bequeathed the plaint schedule properties to her and also revoked an earlier power of attorney granted in favour of a relative. The testator died later that year.
After his death, mutation entries were made in favour of his wife. Several years later, the sister filed a suit claiming ownership under the Will and seeking possession of certain properties. The wife and children challenged the document, alleging that it was fabricated and that the signatures on it were not those of the deceased.
The Trial Court upheld the Will and granted relief in favour of the sister. The First Appellate Court affirmed that decision, and the High Court dismissed the second appeal. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issue
The Supreme Court considered the following key questions:
1. Was the Will validly executed and proved?
2. Did the exclusion of the wife and children create suspicious circumstances?
3. Did mutation entries and procedural objections affect the validity of the Will?
What the Court Held
Proper Proof of Execution
The Court found that one of the attesting witnesses had been examined and had clearly stated that the testator executed the Will in his presence and that both signed the document in the presence of each other. This satisfied the legal requirements for proving execution of the Will.
Delay Did Not Defeat the Claim
The appellants argued that the Will was produced after a substantial delay. The Court rejected this contention because the beneficiary had already informed revenue authorities about the Will shortly after the testator’s death. The courts below had concurrently accepted this explanation.
Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Title
The Supreme Court reiterated that mutation entries are primarily maintained for fiscal purposes. The existence of mutation entries in favour of the wife did not determine ownership rights and could not override a valid testamentary disposition.
Exclusion of Natural Heirs Is Not Enough
One of the principal arguments was that the wife and children had been excluded from the Will. The Court held that mere exclusion of natural heirs does not automatically constitute a suspicious circumstance. The Will itself recorded that the testator had already provided sufficiently for his wife and children.
Unregistered Will Remains Valid
The Court expressly observed that registration is not mandatory for a Will. Accordingly, the fact that the document was unregistered had no significant bearing on its validity.
Procedural Objection Rejected
The challenge based on alleged non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC was also rejected. The Court held that substantial compliance was sufficient where the appellate court had properly considered the evidence and provided reasons for its conclusions.
Practical Takeaways
- An unregistered Will can still be valid and enforceable.
- One attesting witness may be sufficient to prove execution if legal requirements are satisfied.
- Mutation entries do not determine ownership rights.
- Mere exclusion of legal heirs does not automatically invalidate a Will.
- Allegations of forgery require supporting evidence.
- Courts generally respect concurrent factual findings unless serious errors are shown.
What the Judgment Does Not Decide
- Whether every unregistered Will is genuine.
- Whether exclusion of heirs can never be suspicious.
- Ownership disputes unrelated to the Will in question.
- Rights concerning properties not covered by the Will.
- Any succession dispute involving different facts and evidence.
Short Ratio
A Will may be upheld where its execution is proved through an attesting witness and no genuine suspicious circumstances are established. Mere exclusion of natural heirs, non-registration of the Will or mutation entries in favour of another person do not, by themselves, invalidate a testamentary disposition.
