Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) And Ors. Vs Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. And Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Inheritance Isn’t a Birthright When a Valid Will Exists: Will Power Beats Bloodline: Supreme Court Upholds Sister’s Inheritance Despite Wife & Children’s Challenge
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court in Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) & Ors. vs. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. upheld the validity of a Will executed by a Chartered Accountant in favour of his sister, rejecting the challenge mounted by his wife and children. The Court reaffirmed that mere exclusion of natural heirs is not a suspicious circumstance and that the very purpose of a Will is often to alter the normal line of succession.
The testator had bequeathed agricultural and ancestral properties situated in Karnataka exclusively to his sister, while specifically recording in the Will that he had already provided “enough and more” to his wife and children residing in Bombay. The legal heirs alleged that the Will was fabricated and forged, but notably, none of them stepped into the witness box. Instead, only the power-of-attorney holder deposed on their behalf. On the contrary, one of the attesting witnesses clearly proved execution of the Will and confirmed that the testator had signed it in his presence.
The Supreme Court reiterated settled principles governing proof of Wills under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and emphasized that suspicious circumstances must be “real, germane and valid” and not merely the fantasy of a doubting mind. The Court held that once the Will was duly proved through an attesting witness, the burden shifted to the challengers to establish forgery or fraud, which they utterly failed to do. The Court also observed that mutation entries do not confer title and are merely fiscal in nature.
Rejecting another technical challenge, the Court clarified that mere non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC would not vitiate an appellate judgment if there was substantial compliance and proper appreciation of evidence. It further held that affidavits filed by attesting witnesses denying signatures had no evidentiary value unless tested through cross-examination. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of all three courts and dismissed the appeal, thereby cementing the sister’s title over the properties.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
