The Supreme Court has ruled that a will cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that legal heirs have been denied a share, emphasizing that a person is legally entitled to dispose of his property as he wishes. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vijay Bishnoi stated that the exclusion of natural heirs from a property, by itself, cannot be construed as a suspicious circumstance.
Details of the Case
The court dismissed the plea of the wife and children of a chartered accountant challenging the validity of his will. The will, made in 1983, bequeathed all scheduled properties in favor of the CA's only sister. The CA died just six months after executing the will, triggering a legal battle among family members that lasted for 43 years before being adjudicated by the apex court.
Legal Principle Established
The bench observed that unless the exclusion of legal heirs is accompanied by suspicious circumstances affecting the genuineness or execution of the will, the exclusion alone does not render a will invalid. The court noted that the will in question clearly specified that the testator had not done any injustice to his wife, children, or other relatives, and that he had given enough to them.
The bench further elaborated: "The contention of the appellants (wife, children) that they, being the natural heirs of the testator, have been outrightly excluded without any reason and that such exclusion constitutes a suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the will is legally untenable. It is well-established that mere deprivation of natural heirs, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind the execution of a will is to interfere with the normal line of succession."
Execution of the Will
The court found that the CA's will was duly executed by the testator voluntarily, out of his free will, and in a sound state of mind. The will stood proved through the testimony of one of the attesting witnesses who was examined by the trial court. This witness categorically stated that the testator executed the will in his presence, and that both he and the testator signed the will in the presence of each other.
This judgment reinforces the principle that the freedom of testation is a fundamental right, and courts should not lightly interfere with a testator's wishes unless there is clear evidence of fraud, coercion, or undue influence.
