Will – Validity of Will – Exclusion of natural heirs – One BSNtestator executed his last Will dated 15.05.1983 bequeathing all the plaint schedule properties in the favour of his only sister L, who is the plaintiff and respondent no. 1 herein, and cancelled the POA executed in favour of his brother-in-law – Testator passed away on 30.11.1983 – After the death of the testator, an application was made by his wife, being appellant no.1, before the Tehsildar, Udupi for the transfer of her husband’s properties in her favour – Mutation order was passed in favour of appellant no.1 – On 22.11.1990, L instituted a civil suit on the basis of the Will executed by the testator – The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties under the Will – The wife and children of the testator, namely appellant nos.1 to 3 and respondent nos.2 to 4, filed a written statement and contended that the Will is false and fabricated – Trial Court allowed the suit of the plaintiff and declared plaintiff as owner of the plaint schedule property as per the Will – First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court – Aggrieved, wife and children of the testator preferred a second appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed – Correctness: Held: After a careful perusal of the relevant material on record and applying the settled proposition of law, 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, PW2 by the Trial Court – 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 – Plaintiff had already given a representation before the Tehsildar, Udupi vide notice dated 10.02.1984 to mutate her name, and the said notice was received by the concerned authorities as evidenced by the postal certificate – As regards the contention of the appellants that they had obtained mutation entries in the year 1984, 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 – It is trite to state that when the validity of a Will is to be determined, the overall terms of a Will, the intention of the testator and the surrounding circumstances have also to be seen – 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, and unless the exclusion is accompanied by suspicious circumstances affecting the genuineness or due execution of a Will, such exclusion alone does not render a Will invalid – Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the exclusion of the natural heirs cannot be sufficient to vitiate the Will in question, particularly when the Will clearly specifies that the testator has not done any injustice to his wife, children, or other relatives, and that he has given enough to his wife and children who are residing at Bombay – The concurrent findings of all the Courts have rightly given a well-reasoned decision upholding the validity of the Will and the same does not warrant interference of this Court. [Paras 30, 31, 34, 39]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan (2013) 4 SCC 465.. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.