The Supreme Court, in Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) & Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. [2026 INSC 521] reiterated that the mere exclusion of natural legal heirs does not, by itself, make a Will suspicious.
Earlier Supreme Court Precedents in this regard are Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan [ (2004) 2 SCC 321], Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee [(1995) 4 SCC 459] and Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan [(2023) 9 SCC 734].
Purpose of Writing a Will
Courts recognise that the primary purpose of writing a Will is to alter the ordinary line of succession. A property owner has complete legal freedom to distribute their assets to whomever they choose.
Principles Governing Exclusion of Heirs in a Will
- A person who owns property may bequeath it to anyone, including friends or distant relatives, without any obligation to divide it fairly among family members.
- Making a Will inherently involves choosing to depart from the rules of natural succession.
- The legal focus remains on whether the testator signed the document voluntarily and while of sound mind, rather than on who receives the property.
What Actually Makes a Will Suspicious
- Shaky, forged, or disputed signatures that do not match the testator’s normal handwriting.
- A situation where a beneficiary takes an active or controlling role in the writing or execution of the Will.
- Failure to properly execute or sign the document in the presence of the required attesting witnesses.
Evidentiary Proof in Court
To establish testamentary capacity, the testator must simultaneously meet the following criteria, as derived from established legal precedent:
- They must clearly know they are signing a document that distributes their assets after death.
- They must understand, in general terms, what assets, land, or wealth they own, though they need not recall every minor detail.
- They must understand who their natural family members or potential beneficiaries are, even if they choose to exclude them.
- They must not be suffering from a temporary or permanent mental affliction or delusion that directly compels an unnatural distribution of their estate.
A Will Is Presumed Valid Unless Proven Otherwise
The law presumes a Will to be valid unless proven otherwise. The burden lies on the person challenging the Will to lead evidence that raises a “real doubt” about the testator’s capacity.
If they succeed, the burden shifts to those propounding the Will to prove, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the testator possessed the requisite mental capacity at the time of execution.
Mode of Proving a Will
A Will must satisfy all the formalities prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, namely:
(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction, and such signature or mark shall indicate that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will;
(b) The Will must be attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is required;
(c) Each attesting witness must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will, or have seen some other person sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or must have received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signature;
(d) Each attesting witness shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator; however, the simultaneous presence of all witnesses at the time of attestation is not required.
One Attesting Witness Need to be Examined to Prove a Will
The Supreme Court, time and again, clarified that, to prove execution of the Will, at least one attesting witness who is alive, subject to the process of the court, and capable of giving evidence must be examined.
The attesting witness must depose not only to the testator’s signature but also to the fact that each witness signed the Will in the presence of the testator. Where the evidence of one attesting witness is sufficient to prove due execution, examination of the other attesting witnesses may be dispensed with.
