Exclusion of natural heirs does not constitute a suspicious circumstance or invalidate a duly executed Will.

The appellants (six daughters of the deceased, Sunderlal Patel) challenged a judgment dated 01-03-2013, which dismissed their suit for a declaration that a registered will dated 17-05-1995 was forged and void.

The testator, Sunderlal, bequeathed his share of agricultural lands, houses, and tractors to his brother (defendant No. 1), citing that his daughters were married and settled, and his brother was providing him care.

The appellants argued that excluding natural heirs constituted a suspicious circumstance and sought to introduce a later document dated 15-05-1997 as the "last will" via an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

1. Whether the exclusion of natural heirs (daughters) in favor of a brother constitutes a "suspicious circumstance" sufficient to invalidate a registered will.

2. Whether a document written on a letterhead lacking attesting witnesses can be proved as a subsequent will under the Indian Succession Act.

3. Whether the propounder successfully discharged the burden of proving the execution of the will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

The court primarily applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the mandatory requirement of attesting witnesses to prove a will.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy (2026), which established that mere deprivation of natural heirs is not a suspicious circumstance as the purpose of a will is to interfere with normal succession.

It further cited Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam (2005) regarding the shifting of the burden of proof from the propounder to the party alleging undue influence.

The court found that the will (Ex. D/1) was a registered document and its execution was duly proved through the testimonies of two attesting witnesses, Shyamlal (PW-1) and Achchhelal (PW-3), who confirmed the testator signed in their presence.

Regarding the "suspicious circumstances," the court reasoned that the testator provided explicit justifications in the will—namely, that his daughters were settled and he was residing with his brother.

Applying the Parvathi Nairthi doctrine, the court held that any person executing a will intends to deviate from natural succession; thus, exclusion alone cannot vitiate the document.

Finally, the court rejected the appellants' 1997 document because it lacked signatures of attesting witnesses, making it legally impossible to prove as a will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.

The court dismissed the application for additional evidence and the appeal, affirming the trial court's decree.

The suit filed by the daughters for partition and declaration was dismissed.