NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that merely excluding natural heirs like a wife or children from a will does not automatically make it suspicious or invalid. The court upheld a will in which a man left his property to his sister while excluding his wife and children.What was the case about?The dispute reached the Supreme Court after family members challenged a will on the ground that the deceased had not given any share to his wife and children and had instead transferred property in favour of his sister. The properties in question were agricultural and ancestral lands situated in Karnataka, as per a report by LiveLaw.The challengers argued that such exclusion itself created suspicion about whether the will was genuine. They also argued that the will was suspicious because it had not been registered.However, the Supreme Court disagreed and said that a person making a will has the legal freedom to distribute property according to their wishes. Simply because natural heirs are excluded cannot by itself invalidate the document.What did the Supreme Court ruling say?The bench reiterated an important legal principle followed in earlier judgments, that “mere exclusion of natural heirs” is not enough to treat a will as fake or suspicious.It also clarified that the absence of registration does not make a will invalid, noting that a majority of wills are in fact unregistered and that drawing an inference against genuineness on this ground alone is unwarranted.At the same time, the apex court clarified that courts can still examine surrounding circumstances carefully if something appears doubtful.The judgment draws a distinction between a suspicious circumstance and proof that the will is invalid. The court essentially said that exclusion may invite closer scrutiny, but it does not automatically destroy the will.“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,” the bench observed, as quoted by LiveLaw.When can a will become suspicious?Courts usually examine factors such as whether the testator was mentally fit, whether the signatures are genuine, whether the will was executed properly, and whether there was coercion, fraud, or undue influence.The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that suspicious circumstances must be backed by evidence, not just assumptions.“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, as categorically held in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Another v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 459,” the court observed, as quoted by LiveLaw.Does a person have complete freedom to distribute property?In case of self-acquired property, Indian law generally allows a person to decide who will inherit through a valid will. This means property can legally be given to one child, a sibling, a caregiver, a friend, or even a charitable organisation. A person is not legally bound to divide self-acquired property equally among all family members through a will.It is worth noting that in this case, the property involved was ancestral and agricultural in nature. The general principle of testamentary freedom, however, applies broadly and was affirmed by the court.
