Mr. Counsel, the testator's wife and children were his natural heirs. The Will excludes them entirely. Is there not at least a suspicion that the Will may not be genuine?

My Lord, the whole idea behind a Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. If a testator could only bequeath property to natural heirs, the very purpose of a Will would be defeated. This Court has consistently held that the exclusion of natural heirs alone is not a suspicious circumstance. In Rabindra Nath Mukherjee, this Court held that 'mere deprivation of natural heirs is not by itself a suspicious circumstance.' In this case, the Will itself provides a reason — the testator stated that he had already given enough to his wife and children. The petitioners did not step into the witness box to deny this. They have not produced any evidence to show that they did not receive anything. The exclusion is, therefore, not suspicious.

The attesting witness PW2 is the brother of the testator and the brother of the plaintiff. Is he not an interested witness? Should his testimony not be viewed with suspicion?

My Lord, the law does not require an attesting witness to be independent. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 only requires that one attesting witness be called. Even if the witness is related, his testimony is admissible. The question is whether his testimony is credible. PW2 was cross-examined at length. Nothing was elicited to discredit him. He consistently stated that the testator signed the Will in his presence and that he signed in the presence of the testator. That is sufficient. The petitioners did not produce any witness to contradict him. They did not enter the witness box themselves. In these circumstances, PW2's testimony is fully reliable.

The other attesting witness, Mohammad Saheb, filed an affidavit stating that he did not sign the Will. Why did the propounder not call him as a witness?

My Lord, the propounder is not required to call all attesting witnesses. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits the propounder to prove the Will through the testimony of one attesting witness. The propounder examined PW2, who proved due execution. That is sufficient. Mohammad Saheb's affidavit was filed even before the written statement was filed, without any notice from the Court. It is not admissible as evidence. The deponent was not produced for cross-examination. This Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan held that an affidavit is not evidence within Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless ordered by the court under Order XIX CPC. The affidavit is, therefore, of no consequence.

The First Appellate Court framed only general points for determination. Is that not a violation of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC?

My Lord, Order XLI Rule 31 CPC requires the appellate court to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons. The First Appellate Court, in its judgment, discussed each of the grounds raised by the petitioners. The points for determination may have been couched in general terms, but the reasoning is detailed and covers all the issues. This Court in G. Amalorpavam held that substantial compliance is sufficient. The judgment should not be set aside on technical grounds when the substance of the appeal has been considered. The High Court rightly held that the findings could not be set aside on mere technicalities.

For RespondentCivil Premium

Will Validly Proved, Exclusion Not Suspicious — (2026) INSC 521

The Will was duly executed and proved through the testimony of an attesting witness.

Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy — (2026) INSC 521

Core Argument

The Will was duly executed and proved through the testimony of an attesting witness. The exclusion of natural heirs is not a suspicious circumstance because the Will itself states that the testator had already provided for them. The concurrent findings of three courts should not be disturbed.

Key Precedents

Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee (1995) 4 SCC 459 — Held that mere deprivation of natural heirs is not by itself a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea of a Will is to interfere with normal succession.
Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) 11 SCC 277 — Held that suspicious circumstances must be real, germane and valid; the exclusion of natural heirs without more does not qualify.
G. Amalorpavam v. R. C. Diocese of Madurai (2006) 3 SCC 224 — Held that non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC does not vitiate judgment if there is substantial compliance.
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465 — Held that an affidavit is not evidence within Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless ordered by the court under Order XIX CPC.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in