On 21 May 2026, the Supreme Court delivered a clear and welcome judgment in Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) & Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6859 of 2014). The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the wife and children of the testator and upheld the validity of a Will that completely excluded them in favour of the testator’s sister.
This judgment is significant because it once again clarifies two fundamental aspects of testamentary law that are often misunderstood or misused in litigation:
- A Will is not required to be registered to be valid.
- The exclusion of natural heirs (Class I heirs) is not, by itself, a suspicious circumstance.
The Core Principle: Testamentary Freedom
The entire concept of a Will exists for one primary reason — to allow a person to dispose of his property according to his own wishes, even if it means deviating from the normal line of succession. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held (and reaffirmed in this case), the very purpose of executing a Will is to interfere with the natural line of succession.
In the present case, the testator, B. Sheena Nairi, a successful Chartered Accountant, chose to bequeath his substantial properties in Karnataka to his sister Laxmi Nairthy, while clearly stating in the Will itself that he had already given “enough and more” to his wife and children who were residing in Bombay. The wife and children challenged the Will alleging forgery, but failed to enter the witness box to substantiate their allegations.
The Supreme Court rightly held that mere exclusion of natural heirs does not render a Will invalid or suspicious. A testator is legally entitled to decide who should inherit his property. If he feels that his natural heirs have been ungrateful, neglectful, or have caused him pain during his lifetime, he has every right to disinherit them. This is not a “suspicious circumstance” — it is the very reason why the law provides for testamentary disposition.
Non-Registration of Will Is Not Fatal
One of the most important clarifications in this judgment is with respect to non-registration of the Will. The appellants had argued that the Will was unregistered and therefore suspicious. The Supreme Court rejected this contention outright, relying on the well-settled position laid down in Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi (1953):
“There is nothing in law which requires the registration of a will and wills are in a majority of cases not registered at all. To draw any inference against the genuineness of the will on the ground of its non-registration appears to us to be wholly unwarranted.”
This is a crucial reminder. Unlike sale deeds, gift deeds, or mortgage deeds, a Will does not fall under the category of documents that require mandatory registration under the Registration Act, 1908. The law deliberately keeps this flexibility because most people execute Wills privately, often in the presence of just one or two witnesses, sometimes even without any witness if they are confident about the document.
The Supreme Court has correctly recognised that requiring mandatory registration of Wills would defeat the very purpose for which the provision exists — especially in cases where a person wants to make a Will in secrecy or in isolation due to strained family relations.
Proof of Will – Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act
The Court also reaffirmed the settled principles for proof of a Will under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is sufficient if one attesting witness (who is alive and subject to the process of the Court) proves the due execution of the Will. In this case, the brother of the testator (PW-2), who was one of the attesting witnesses, deposed that the testator executed the Will in his presence and that both of them signed in each other’s presence. This was held to be sufficient.
The appellants had relied upon subsequent affidavits of the attesting witnesses denying the Will. The Supreme Court rightly discarded these affidavits, holding that an affidavit is not “evidence” unless the deponent is tendered for cross-examination under Order XIX CPC. Filing self-serving affidavits after the death of the testator cannot be allowed to destroy a validly executed Will.
Practical Reality and a Word of Caution
While the law does not require registration of a Will, and this judgment rightly protects that position, I would strongly urge all readers — especially my fellow advocates who advise clients on succession planning — to seriously consider getting the Will registered whenever possible.
Registration of a Will, though not mandatory, serves as powerful evidence of its genuineness. It reduces the scope for future litigation, prevents allegations of forgery or fabrication, and provides greater certainty and peace of mind to both the testator and the beneficiaries. In today’s times, when family disputes over property have become extremely common and protracted, a registered Will can save the next generation years of expensive and emotionally draining court battles.
If the testator is in a position to get the Will registered (especially when he is making substantial bequests or excluding natural heirs), it is always advisable to do so. The small effort and cost involved at the time of execution can prevent enormous hardship later.
Conclusion
The judgment in Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy is a balanced and pragmatic decision. It protects the testamentary freedom of individuals while also laying down clear evidentiary standards for proving a Will. It sends a strong message that:
- A Will need not be registered to be valid.
- Exclusion of natural heirs is not inherently suspicious.
- Allegations of forgery must be proved with positive evidence, not through afterthought affidavits or technical objections.
At the same time, this judgment should not be read as discouraging registration. On the contrary, it highlights why voluntary registration is a wise and protective step for those who wish to ensure that their last wishes are respected without prolonged legal battles.
As advocates, we must advise our clients accordingly — respect the law as it stands, but also guide them towards practical solutions that minimise future disputes.