Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) through LRs. and Ors. 2026 INSC 521

B. Sheena Nairi was a Chartered Accountant residing in Bombay who owned substantial agricultural and ancestral properties in Udupi Taluk, Karnataka.

He was married to Parvathi Nairthi (Appellant No. 1) and had five children. He also had a sister, Laxmi Nairthy (Respondent No. 1), and brothers, including B. Jagannatha Nairi.

On May 15, 1983, the testator executed a Will bequeathing his properties in Karnataka to his sister, Laxmi Nairthy, and revoked a Power of Attorney (POA) previously granted to his brother-in-law, Krishnayya Nairi.

The testator died on November 30, 1983. Following his death, his wife (Appellant No. 1) applied for and obtained a mutation order in April 1984, transferring the properties into her name.

In November 1990, Laxmi Nairthy filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership based on the Will and recovery of possession of the properties.

The wife and children (Appellants) contested the suit, claiming the Will was a forged and fabricated document created by the testator’s brothers in collusion. The Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and the High Court all concurrently upheld the validity of the Will, leading to the present appeal in the Supreme Court.

Proof of Execution: Under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, at least one attesting witness must prove the execution of a Will. The Court found that B. Jagannatha Nairi (PW2), an attesting witness, categorically testified that the testator signed the Will in his presence and they signed in each other’s presence.

Exclusion of Natural Heirs: The Appellants argued that their exclusion was a “suspicious circumstance.” The Court held that the very purpose of a Will is to deviate from the normal line of succession. Furthermore, the Will itself explicitly stated that the testator had already provided “enough and more” for his wife and children in Bombay.

Delay in Production: The Court dismissed the argument of a 7-year delay in producing the Will, noting that Laxmi Nairthy had made representations to the Tehsildar as early as February 1984 (shortly after the death) mentioning the Will.

Mutation and Registration: The Court reiterated that mutation entries are for fiscal/tax purposes and do not confer title. Additionally, the law does not require a Will to be registered for it to be valid.

Evidentiary Value of Affidavits: The Appellants relied on affidavits from attesting witnesses denying their signatures. The Court rejected these, stating that an affidavit is not “evidence” under Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless procedures under Order XIX of the CPC are followed. It also noted these affidavits were suspiciously filed before the written statement without any court notice.

Conduct of the Appellants: The Court observed that the wife and children failed to enter the witness box to deny the Will or provide evidence of the properties they allegedly received.