The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of a Will executed by a Karnataka-based property owner in favour of his sister, rejecting allegations of forgery raised by his wife and children. The Court ruled that the Will had been properly proved through an attesting witness and found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
A Bench of Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment on May 21, 2026.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose over agricultural and ancestral properties owned by B. Sheena Nairi, a chartered accountant who had properties in Bombay and Karnataka. Before his death in 1983, he executed a Will dated May 15, 1983, allegedly bequeathing the disputed properties to his sister, Laxmi Nairthy.
After his death, his wife Parvathi Nairthi and children got the properties mutated in their names before the Tehsildar, Udupi. Years later, Laxmi Nairthy filed a civil suit claiming ownership under the Will and sought possession of the properties.
The family members challenged the Will, alleging that it was fabricated and that the signatures on the document were not genuine.
Findings of the Lower Courts
The Trial Court accepted the Will after examining one of the attesting witnesses, B. Jagannatha Nairi, who stated that the testator had signed the Will in his presence. The court also compared the disputed signatures with admitted signatures available on an earlier power of attorney document and found them similar.
The First Appellate Court later affirmed those findings, observing that the wife and children of the deceased had not personally stepped into the witness box to deny the Will or support the forgery allegations.
The Karnataka High Court also dismissed the second appeal in 2012, holding that no substantial question of law arose in the matter.
Court’s Observations
Before examining the dispute, the Supreme Court discussed the legal principles governing proof of a Will under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Bench referred to several earlier decisions explaining that a Will must be proved through at least one attesting witness and that suspicious circumstances surrounding execution must be properly explained.
The Court observed that the Will in the present case had been validly proved through the testimony of an attesting witness.
“The Will was duly executed by the testator voluntarily out of his free will in a sound state of mind,” the Bench noted.
Rejecting the argument that the exclusion of the wife and children itself created suspicion, the Court clarified that a person making a Will is legally entitled to distribute property according to personal wishes.
The Bench observed that
“mere exclusion of the natural heirs from the property of the testator, by itself, cannot be construed as a suspicious circumstance.”
The Court also rejected objections regarding delay in producing the Will and noted that mutation entries in revenue records do not by themselves confer ownership rights.
Decision
The Supreme Court finally held that all three courts had correctly appreciated the evidence and there was no ground for interference.
“Concurrent findings of all the Courts have rightly given a well-reasoned decision upholding the validity of the Will,” the Bench stated while dismissing the appeal.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs
Case Details
Case Title: Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) & Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6859 of 2014
Judges: Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Decision Date: May 21, 2026
Counsels: Ms. Meenakshi Arora for Appellants; Mr. Vinay Navare for Respondents
