Exclusion of Natural Heirs Alone Does Not Constitute Suspicious Circumstance Vitiating Execution of a Valid Will

The testator, B. Sheena Nairi, a Chartered Accountant, died in 1983 leaving behind agricultural lands in Karnataka and properties in Bombay.

He was survived by his wife and five children (Appellants).

Respondent No. 1 (the testator’s sister) filed a suit in 1990 claiming ownership of the properties based on a Will dated 15.05.1983.

The Appellants contested the Will as forged, noting that the properties had already been mutated in the wife's name in 1984.

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld the Will’s validity, finding that the Plaintiff proved execution through an attesting witness (PW2) and signature comparison.

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming these concurrent findings.

The Court applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requiring at least one attesting witness to prove the execution of a Will.

It relied on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma regarding the "test of satisfaction of the prudent mind" and the burden of the propounder to dispel suspicious circumstances.

It cited Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee to establish that the deprivation of natural heirs is not per se a suspicious circumstance.

It cited G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai regarding substantial compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC.

It applied the principle from Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra that affidavits do not constitute "evidence" under Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless subjected to cross-examination.

The Court found that the Will was duly proved by PW2, an attesting witness, who confirmed that he and the testator signed in each other's presence.

The Court dismissed the allegation of "suspicious delay," noting the Respondent had attempted mutation as early as 1984, shortly after the testator’s death.

Regarding the exclusion of the Appellants, the Court observed that the Will specifically recorded that the testator had already provided sufficiently for his wife and children in Bombay; thus, the disposition was a rational exercise of testamentary freedom.

The Court rejected the Appellants' reliance on affidavits from witnesses denying their signatures, ruling that such documents carry no evidentiary weight without cross-examination and were filed under suspicious timing.

The Court held that while the First Appellate Court framed "general" points for determination, it had substantially complied with Order XLI Rule 31 by conducting a thorough appraisal of the evidence.

The Court held that the Will was validly executed and the propounded "suspicious circumstances" were adequately explained or legally insufficient to vitiate the testament.

The Court affirmed that mutation entries do not confer title and are merely for fiscal purposes, and that the non-registration of a Will does not affect its genuineness.

The Impugned Judgment of the High Court was affirmed.