Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs.
Background
B. Sheena Nairi, a chartered accountant who owned substantial property in Karnataka, executed a Will in 1983 leaving all his properties to his sister Laxmi Nairthy and revoking an earlier Power of Attorney given to his brother-in-law. After his death, his wife and children contested the Will as forged, while Laxmi Nairthy sued to enforce it. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court both upheld the Will's validity and ruled in Laxmi Nairthy's favour, and the Karnataka High Court dismissed the family's second appeal, prompting this further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the concurrent findings of all three lower courts, including expert and witness evidence on the testator's signature and the surrounding circumstances of the Will's execution, and found no error warranting interference. It rejected the argument that the High Court's second-appellate judgment was invalid for not framing formal "points for determination," holding that substantial compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC is enough where the reasoning is otherwise clear. It also held that affidavits filed by the Will's attesting witnesses denying their signatures could not be relied upon, since they were filed before the written statement and the witnesses were not subjected to proper cross-examination in support of them. The Court affirmed the validity of the Will and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Once multiple courts have consistently found a Will genuine based on properly tested evidence, the Supreme Court will be very reluctant to reopen those factual findings; and unsupported affidavits filed outside the normal evidentiary process (without proper cross-examination) generally carry little weight in disputing a document's authenticity.