In Parvathi Nairthi (D) vs. Laxmi Nairthy (D) 2026 INSC 521, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 28-page long judgement dated May 21, 202, wherein, it concluded:"....we are of the view that mere non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void and may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it and the rule should not be interpreted technically to compromise substantial justice. The findings in the decision passed by the First Appellate Court have properly scrutinised the evidence on record, even if the points of consideration are general, and thus, the same does not suffer from any illegality." It added:".... this Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of drew on Court's decision in Maharashtra and Others (2013) 4 SCC 465 has categorically held that an affidavit is not an “evidence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same can be used as “evidence” only if, for sufficient reasons, the Court passes an order under Order XIX of CPC and thus, the filing of an affidavit cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact situation. However, in a case where the deponent is available for cross-examination, andopportunity is given to the other side to cross-examine him, the same can be relied upon. In the present case, it is also important to note that those affidavits were filed even prior to the filing of the written statement, and the same has been rightly dealt by all the Courts, which questioned as to how the witnesses came to know about the enquiry regarding the validity of the Will despite no notice having been issued by the Court calling upon them to submit such affidavits. Thus, in view of the same, the affidavits filed by the attesting witnesses to the Will cannot be relied upon."
The judgement reads: "31. The contention of the Appellants that there was an unexplained delay of 7 years in producing the Will after the death of the testator is liable to be rejected. The said contention has been considered by all the Courts, which concurrently held that the Plaintiff had already given a representation before the Tehsildar, Udupi vide notice dated 10.02.1984 to mutate her name, and the said notice was received by the concerned authorities as evidenced by the postal certificate. Although, there was no material which disclosed that the Plaintiff had produced the copy of the Will before the concerned authority, but the said notice itself disclosed all relevant facts, including the execution of the Will in favour of the Plaintiff, without any delay. All the Courts have duly examined the said issue thoroughly and have recorded concurrent findings and thus, we are also in conformity with the same. As regards the contention of the Appellants that they had obtained mutation entries in the year 1984, it is well settled that such mutation entries do not confer title and it is effected merely for fiscal purposes, namely, to enable the State to realize tax from the person whose name is recorded in the revenue records, as held in Balwant Singh And Another v. Daulat Singh (Dead) By LRs. And Others (1997) 7 SCC 137. Also, the contention that the Will is unregistered has no significant bearing on its validity, as this Court in the case of Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi And Others (1953) 1 SCC 295 has clearly held that:-6'. …There is nothing in law which requires the registration of a will and wills are in a majority of cases not registered at all. To draw any inference against the genuineness of the will on the ground of its non-registration appears to us to be wholly unwarranted.'"
There is no need to register a will. People unnecessarily register it thinking that it is necessary to validate the will. The law of will is crystal clear that will is valid without any registration. The law treats unregistered and registered Will at par.
No comments:
Post a Comment