Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy
“Silence in the Witness Box: Why a Will Cannot Be Defeated by Allegations Alone”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the widow and children of a deceased Chartered Accountant who had bequeathed his agricultural and ancestral properties to his sister through a 1983 Will. The Court held that the Will was validly executed and proved through the testimony of an attesting witness, and that the testator's family could not defeat it merely by alleging forgery in their written statement without ever stepping into the witness box, examining a handwriting expert, or seriously cross-examining the attesting witness. Affirming the concurrent findings of three courts below, the Court reaffirmed that mere exclusion of natural heirs, non-registration of a Will, and delay in producing it are not, by themselves, suspicious circumstances that vitiate a Will.
The Bottom Line
A Will does not become invalid simply because it excludes the testator's wife and children in favour of a sister, or because it was registered late or produced years later. Once an attesting witness proves due execution, the burden shifts to those alleging forgery to actually prove it — and they cannot discharge that burden by sitting silent in the courtroom. The persons best placed to deny the Will here never entered the witness box, never summoned a handwriting expert, and never seriously challenged the attesting witness. The Supreme Court refused to disturb the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court upholding the Will.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Will Executed by B. Sheena Nairi
The testator, a Chartered Accountant, executed his last Will bequeathing all the suit properties to his only surviving sister Laxmi Nairthy and cancelled the earlier Power of Attorney granted to his brother-in-law.
Will Executed by B. Sheena Nairi
The testator, a Chartered Accountant, executed his last Will bequeathing all the suit properties to his only surviving sister Laxmi Nairthy and cancelled the earlier Power of Attorney granted to his brother-in-law.
Death of the Testator
B. Sheena Nairi passed away at the age of 69 due to a heart attack in Delhi, leaving behind his wife, five children, and the disputed Will.
Death of the Testator
B. Sheena Nairi passed away at the age of 69 due to a heart attack in Delhi, leaving behind his wife, five children, and the disputed Will.
Sister Files Representation Disclosing the Will
Laxmi Nairthy gave a representation to the Tehsildar, Udupi disclosing the execution of the Will in her favour, with copies forwarded to the relevant revenue authorities.
Sister Files Representation Disclosing the Will
Laxmi Nairthy gave a representation to the Tehsildar, Udupi disclosing the execution of the Will in her favour, with copies forwarded to the relevant revenue authorities.
Mutation Ordered in Favour of the Wife
The Tehsildar, Udupi passed a mutation order under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 transferring the properties into the name of the testator's wife, Parvathi Nairthi.
Mutation Ordered in Favour of the Wife
The Tehsildar, Udupi passed a mutation order under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 transferring the properties into the name of the testator's wife, Parvathi Nairthi.
Civil Suit Filed by the Sister
Laxmi Nairthy instituted O.S. No. 186 of 1990 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udupi, seeking a declaration of ownership under the Will and recovery of possession.
Civil Suit Filed by the Sister
Laxmi Nairthy instituted O.S. No. 186 of 1990 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udupi, seeking a declaration of ownership under the Will and recovery of possession.
Trial Court Allows the Suit
The Trial Court declared the sister the owner under the Will, holding that the attesting witness had proved execution and that the family had failed to prove their plea of forgery.
Trial Court Allows the Suit
The Trial Court declared the sister the owner under the Will, holding that the attesting witness had proved execution and that the family had failed to prove their plea of forgery.
First Appellate Court Dismisses Appeal
The Fast Track Court, Udupi affirmed the Trial Court, noting that the family never entered the witness box to deny the Will and that the disputed signature matched the admitted signature on the POA.
First Appellate Court Dismisses Appeal
The Fast Track Court, Udupi affirmed the Trial Court, noting that the family never entered the witness box to deny the Will and that the disputed signature matched the admitted signature on the POA.
High Court Dismisses Second Appeal
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed R.S.A. No. 1970 of 2012, holding that no substantial question of law arose and that the First Appellate Court had substantially complied with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
High Court Dismisses Second Appeal
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed R.S.A. No. 1970 of 2012, holding that no substantial question of law arose and that the First Appellate Court had substantially complied with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
Supreme Court Dismisses the Appeal
The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of all three courts, upholding the validity of the Will and dismissing the appeal of the wife and children.
Supreme Court Dismisses the Appeal
The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of all three courts, upholding the validity of the Will and dismissing the appeal of the wife and children.
The Story
B. Sheena Nairi was a Chartered Accountant and a permanent resident of Bombay who worked with five large reputed companies. Apart from a residential flat in Bombay, he owned substantial immovable properties at Brahmavar and Chanthar Village in Udupi Taluk, Karnataka, consisting primarily of agricultural lands and ancestral properties. He came from a large family — two sisters (Akkanni Nairi, the elder, and Laxmi Nairthy, the younger) and two brothers (B. Jagannatha Nairi, the elder, and B. Lakshmana Nairi, the younger). After his elder sister's death, B. Sheena Nairi had cared for her two daughters and performed their marriages.
B. Sheena Nairi was married to Parvathi Nairthi and they had five children — Prabhakar Nairi, Jayanth Nairi, Leela Prabhu, Sundara Nairi, and Usha Nairi. For the management of certain properties, he had earlier executed a Power of Attorney (POA) in favour of his brother-in-law Krishnayya Nairi on 30 April 1960 and 8 April 1961.
On 15 May 1983, B. Sheena Nairi executed his last Will, bequeathing all the plaint schedule properties in favour of his only surviving sister, Laxmi Nairthy, and cancelled the POA earlier granted to his brother-in-law. The Will recited that he was doing no injustice to his wife and children, having already given "enough and more" to his wife and children residing at Bombay. B. Sheena Nairi (the testator) passed away on 30 November 1983 at the age of 69 due to a heart attack in Delhi.
After the testator's death, his wife (Parvathi Nairthi) applied to the Tehsildar, Udupi for transfer of her husband's properties in her favour. The Tehsildar issued notice under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and, by an order dated 6 April 1984, passed a mutation order transferring the properties to the wife. Meanwhile, the sister Laxmi Nairthy had on 10 February 1984 already given a representation to the Tehsildar disclosing the execution of the Will in her favour.
On 22 November 1990, Laxmi Nairthy instituted a civil suit (O.S. No. 186 of 1990) before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udupi, seeking a declaration that she was the absolute owner of the suit properties under the Will, a perpetual injunction restraining the wife and children from interfering with her possession of Item Nos. 1 to 3, recovery of possession of Item Nos. 4 to 12 (which had been with Krishnayya Nairi under the POA), mesne profits, and compensation. The wife and children contested the suit, alleging that the Will was false and fabricated, that the testator never executed it, that the signature was not his, and that it had been created after his death by his brothers in collusion.
The Trial Court allowed the suit on 16 December 2008, the First Appellate Court (Fast Track Court, Udupi) dismissed the family's appeal on 6 August 2012, and the High Court of Karnataka dismissed their second appeal on 15 November 2012. The wife and children — Parvathi Nairthi (since deceased) and others — then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
The suit was filed after an unexplained delay of seven years
The appellants argued that the sister filed the suit seven years after execution of the Will and six years after the mutation and conversion of the land in the family's favour, with no explanation for the delay. It was also urged that no explanation was given as to why the testator would Will only the lands (and not his other assets) to his sister, to the exclusion of his own wife and children.
The family never objected to the 1984 mutation in their favour
The appellants contended that the sister never objected to the mutation taking place before the Tehsildar, Udupi in 1984, that no copy of the Will was produced at that time, and that no explanation was offered for a document filed by the sister allegedly showing the testator practising his signatures.
The attesting witness gave a contradictory and uninformed account
The appellants submitted that the testimony of B. Jagannatha Nairi, the attesting witness, stated the testator's place of death to be Bombay (whereas he died in Delhi) and that he did not know the contents of the Will. In cross-examination he allegedly stated that his brother's daughter took his signature on a paper whose contents were not disclosed to him, so the affidavit relied upon was self-created.
The First Appellate Court failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC
The appellants argued that the points of consideration framed by the First Appellate Court were "general" in nature, that it erroneously treated the requirements as "mere technicalities," and that it thereby failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, rendering its judgment unsustainable.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Once forgery is alleged and execution is proved, the burden shifts to the objectors
The respondents' counsel Mr. Vinay Navare argued that once specific allegations of forgery or fraud were made and the plaintiff duly proved execution of the Will, the burden shifted to the appellants to prove their plea of forgery. The appellants never asked to send the Will to a handwriting expert nor examined any expert witness, so the plea of forgery was not even attempted to be proved.
The real heirs stayed passive and never entered the witness box
The respondents submitted that the proceedings were driven throughout by Ganesha @ Ganapayya Nairi (Respondent No. 5), whose father held the property under the POA, while the actual heirs — the wife and children — remained passive: the written statement was signed only by Respondent No. 5, only he was examined as DW1, and the stay application was verified by him alone. The persons best placed to deny the Will never deposed.
The attesting witnesses' affidavits were self-serving and could not be relied upon
The respondents pointed out that one attestor, Mohammad Saheb, filed an affidavit on 20 December 1990 — even before the family filed their written statement on 18 February 1991 — raising the question of how he knew about the suit when the Trial Court had issued no notice to him. The affidavit of B. Jagannatha Nairi relied upon by the appellants was thus a self-created document.
There was no delay; the Will was disclosed promptly and registration is irrelevant
The respondents argued that the sister gave a representation to the Tehsildar on 10 February 1984 disclosing the Will, and was constrained to file the suit only in 1990 when Krishnayya Nairi and his son threatened her and cut standing crops. Mutation entries do not confer title, and non-registration of a Will has no bearing on its genuineness.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court framed the single question for its consideration as whether sufficient grounds existed to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of all three courts upholding the validity of the Will. Before applying the law to the facts, the Court restated the governing principles for proving a Will under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, drawing on Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa: a Will speaks from the death of the testator, must be proved by at least one attesting witness, and where suspicious circumstances exist, the propounder must dispel them with a cogent and convincing explanation. Applying these principles, the Court found that the Will was duly executed by the testator out of his free will in a sound state of mind, proved through PW2 (B. Jagannatha Nairi), who deposed that the testator executed the Will in his presence and that both signed in each other's presence. The Court rejected each of the appellants' objections in turn: the seven-year "delay" was explained by the 1984 representation; mutation entries confer no title and are only for fiscal purposes (Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh); non-registration of a Will is immaterial (Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi); mere exclusion of natural heirs is not a suspicious circumstance because the very object of a Will is to interfere with normal succession (Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee); and technical non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC does not vitiate a judgment where there is substantial compliance (G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai). Crucially, the Court emphasised that the appellants — the real heirs — never entered the witness box, never examined a handwriting expert, and never seriously cross-examined the attesting witness, so their plea of forgery was never proved, and the self-serving affidavits of the attestors could not be relied upon. The concurrent and well-reasoned findings did not warrant interference.
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 ... This witness 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.
Para 30
This is the factual foundation of the decision — a single credible attesting witness who proves due execution under Section 68 of the Evidence Act is sufficient to establish the Will.
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.
Para 34
Reaffirms testamentary freedom — disinheriting natural heirs is the very purpose a Will may serve, and is not, standing alone, a ground to doubt the document.
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.
Para 32
Locates the exclusion-of-heirs principle within the broader law of suspicious circumstances, distinguishing genuine red flags from the ordinary consequence of any Will.
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 ... the affidavits filed by the attesting witnesses to the Will cannot be relied upon.
Para 38
Establishes that self-serving affidavits by attestors — filed without court notice and never tested by cross-examination — carry no evidentiary value to overturn a proved Will.
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.
Para 31
Disposes of the family's reliance on the 1984 mutation in their favour — revenue records prove nothing about ownership and cannot defeat a valid Will.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The Supreme Court found that the concurrent findings of all the courts gave a well-reasoned decision upholding the validity of the Will and did not warrant interference. The appeal of the wife and children of the testator was dismissed, leaving intact the declaration that Laxmi Nairthy was the absolute owner of the suit properties under the 1983 Will, with consequential relief of possession and injunction in her favour.
Directions Issued
- The concurrent findings of all three courts upholding the validity and due execution of the Will were affirmed
- The impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 15 November 2012 was upheld in its entirety
- Pending applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs
Key Legal Principles Established
A Will speaks from the death of the testator and must be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 — examination of at least one attesting witness who is alive and capable of giving evidence is sufficient.
If one attesting witness can prove due execution of the Will, the examination of the other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with.
Once specific allegations of forgery or fraud are made and the propounder has proved execution, the burden shifts to the objectors to prove forgery — a burden that cannot be discharged by allegations in pleadings alone.
Mere exclusion or deprivation of natural heirs is not, by itself, a suspicious circumstance, because the very object of a Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession; a testator may dispose of property as he wishes.
Suspicious circumstances must be "real, germane and valid" and not "the fantasy of the doubting mind"; they must affect the genuineness or due execution of the Will.
Non-registration of a Will has no significant bearing on its validity, as most Wills are not registered at all, and no adverse inference can be drawn from non-registration.
Mutation entries in revenue records do not confer title; they are effected only for fiscal purposes and cannot defeat a duly proved Will.
Non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC does not vitiate an appellate judgment where there has been substantial compliance and the appellate court has scrutinised the evidence; the rule should not be applied technically to defeat substantial justice.
An affidavit is not "evidence" under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act unless the deponent is available for cross-examination; self-created affidavits filed without court notice cannot be relied upon to disprove a Will.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- A person can leave property to a sibling or anyone else through a Will, even if it means his wife and children inherit little or nothing — disinheriting heirs is not by itself proof that the Will is fake.
- If you want to challenge a Will as forged, alleging it on paper is not enough — you must give evidence, ideally by entering the witness box yourself and by getting a handwriting expert to examine the signature.
- A Will does not have to be registered to be valid; many genuine Wills are never registered, and non-registration alone does not make a Will suspicious.
- Getting your name entered in revenue or mutation records does not make you the owner — those entries are only for collecting tax and can be overridden by a valid Will.
- Producing a Will some years after a death is not automatically fatal if there is a reasonable explanation, such as a prompt representation to the authorities at the time of death.
- The people best placed to deny a Will — the close family — must actually testify; if they stay silent in court, the courts may treat the Will as proved.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 68
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
“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.”
Relevance: The governing provision for proving a Will. The Court held that the examination of attesting witness B. Jagannatha Nairi (PW2) satisfied Section 68 and established due execution of the Will.
Section 63
Indian Succession Act, 1925
“Prescribes the formalities for execution of an unprivileged Will: the testator must sign or affix his mark; the Will must be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or received his acknowledgement, and each of whom must sign the Will in the presence of the testator.”
Relevance: The Court applied the Section 63 formalities, as distilled in Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, to conclude that the Will was validly executed and attested.
Section 3
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
“Defines "evidence" to mean oral statements made before the Court and documents (including electronic records) produced for the inspection of the Court; an affidavit, not being such evidence, falls outside this definition unless admitted under Order XIX CPC.”
Relevance: The Court held that affidavits of the attesting witnesses, filed without court notice and never tested by cross-examination, were not "evidence" under Section 3 and could not be relied upon to invalidate the Will.
Order XLI Rule 31
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
“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 is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.”
Relevance: The Court held that non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 does not vitiate a judgment where there is substantial compliance and the appellate court has scrutinised the evidence — the family's technical objection was rejected.
Section 17
Registration Act, 1908
“Specifies documents whose registration is compulsory; a Will is not among the instruments required to be compulsorily registered, and registration of a Will remains optional.”
Relevance: The Court reiterated, following Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi, that non-registration of a Will has no significant bearing on its validity and no adverse inference can be drawn from it.
Related Cases & Precedents
Meena Pradhan and Others v. Kamla Pradhan and Another
followed2023 SCC OnLine SC 1198
Supreme Court decision consolidating the principles for proof and validity of a Will, including that a Will speaks from the death of the testator and that stringent requisites of proof are statutorily enjoined to rule out manipulation — relied upon to frame the test for execution.
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others
followed1958 SCC OnLine SC 31
Foundational three-judge decision on proof of Wills and the propounder's duty to dispel suspicious circumstances with a cogent explanation — cited among the line of authority governing the validity and execution of a Will.
Shivakumar and Others v. Sharanabasappa and Others
followed(2021) 11 SCC 277
Supreme Court decision holding that suspicious circumstances must be "real, germane and valid" and not "the fantasy of the doubting mind" — applied to test the family's allegations against the Will.
Balwant Singh and Another v. Daulat Singh (Dead) By LRs. and Others
followed(1997) 7 SCC 137
Supreme Court decision holding that mutation entries do not confer title and are effected only for fiscal purposes — applied to reject the family's reliance on the 1984 mutation in their favour.
Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi and Others
followed(1953) 1 SCC 295
Supreme Court decision holding that there is nothing in law requiring the registration of a Will and that no inference against genuineness can be drawn from non-registration — applied to dismiss the objection that the Will was unregistered.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Kannada
Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy - Kannada Explanation
Tamil
Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy - Tamil Explanation
Telugu
Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy - Telugu Explanation
Hindi
Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy - Hindi Explanation
English
Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy - English Explanation
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector
SLP (Civil) D.No. 42786/2025
Protecting Senior Citizens' Right to Live in Dignity - Eviction of Ungrateful Legal Heirs
Supriyo v. Union of India
2023 INSC 920
The Landmark Case That Defined Marriage Equality in India
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.