Justices Ujjal Bhuyan – New Delhi: Noting that a person is legally entitled to dispose of his property as per his wish, the Supreme Court has ruled that a will cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that a share has been refused to be given to the legal heirs. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vijay Bishnoi said exclusion of natural heirs from a property, in itself, cannot be considered a suspicious circumstance and dismissed the plea of a chartered accountant’s wife and children challenging the validity of the will.
Will. Unless the exclusion of legal heirs is accompanied by doubtful circumstances affecting the genuineness or execution of the will, the exclusion alone does not invalidate the will, the Supreme Court said. It says that the will clearly specifies that the testator has not done any injustice to his wife, children or other relatives and that he has given them a lot.
In the will made in 1983, CA bequeathed all scheduled properties in favor of his only sister. He died just six months later and then a legal battle began between the family members, which lasted for 43 years and was finally adjudicated by the apex court.
“The contention of the Appellants (wife, children) is that they, being the natural heirs of the testator, have been completely excluded without any reason and such exclusion creates a suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will, which is legally untenable. It is well settled that mere disenfranchisement of natural heirs, in itself, cannot be a suspicious circumstance as the whole idea behind the execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. The bench said, The will of CA was voluntarily executed by the testator in a state of sound mind of his own free will and this has been proved through the testimony of one of the testifying witnesses, who was examined by the trial Court, this witness has clearly stated that the testator had executed the will in his presence, and both he and the testator signed the will in the presence of each other”.