The Supreme Court has held that a judgment of a First Appellate Court cannot be set aside merely because the points for determination framed under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were general in nature, so long as the appellate court had substantially complied with the requirement by properly examining the evidence and recording reasons for its conclusions.

The Court observed that procedural rules are intended to advance substantial justice and should not be interpreted in an unduly technical manner to defeat otherwise well-reasoned judicial findings.

The Court was hearing a civil appeal challenging the judgment of the Karnataka High Court affirming concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court upholding the validity of a Will executed by the deceased testator in favour of his sister.

One of the principal contentions raised before the Supreme Court was that the First Appellate Court had failed to properly comply with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC while deciding the first appeal.

A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed: “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 Bench, upon examining the material placed on record, further observed: “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.”

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared for the appellants. Senior Advocate Vinay Navare appeared for the respondents.

Background

The dispute pertained to agricultural and ancestral properties situated in Karnataka belonging to the deceased testator, who had executed a Will in 1983 bequeathing the properties in favour of his sister.

After the death of the testator, mutation entries were effected in favour of his wife. Subsequently, the sister instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership on the basis of the Will, recovery of possession of certain properties, mesne profits and permanent injunction.

The wife and children of the testator opposed the suit, contending that the Will was fabricated and that the signatures appearing on the Will did not belong to the deceased.

The Trial Court decreed the suit after holding that the Will stood duly proved through the testimony of one of the attesting witnesses and through comparison of the disputed signatures with admitted signatures of the testator.

The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. The Karnataka High Court thereafter dismissed the second appeal, holding that although the points for consideration framed by the First Appellate Court may not have been properly formulated, the appellate court had nevertheless assigned detailed reasons on all grounds raised before it.

Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court first examined the settled principles governing proof and validity of a Will under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the law laid down in decisions including H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa.

The Court observed that the Will in question stood duly proved through the testimony of one of the attesting witnesses, who categorically deposed that the testator had signed the Will in his presence and that both had signed in the presence of each other.

Rejecting the argument that the Will was suspicious because the wife and children of the testator had been excluded from inheritance, the Court reiterated that mere exclusion of natural heirs would not by itself constitute a suspicious circumstance.

The Bench observed: “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 Court also rejected the challenge founded upon delay in producing the Will, observing that the plaintiff had already disclosed the existence of the Will before the Tehsildar shortly after the death of the testator.

Turning to the principal issue concerning Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the Supreme Court reproduced the statutory requirement that the appellate judgment must state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision.

The Bench relied upon the decision in G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai (2006), wherein it was held that non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 would not automatically vitiate a judgment if there had been substantial compliance and the appellate court had considered the evidence and controversy in detail.

The Court, quoting from the earlier precedent, reiterated: “Where there is an honest endeavour on the part of the lower appellate court to consider the controversy between the parties and there is proper appraisement of the respective cases and weighing and balancing of the evidence, facts and the other considerations appearing on both sides is clearly manifest by the perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court, it would be a valid judgment even though it does not contain the points for determination.”

Applying the aforesaid principles, the Supreme Court held that the First Appellate Court had properly scrutinised the evidence and recorded findings on all material issues, even though the points for consideration framed by it were somewhat general in nature.

The Court further observed that the High Court had rightly refused to interfere merely on technical objections regarding the form of the appellate judgment when the substance of judicial scrutiny was clearly evident from the record.

The Supreme Court also rejected reliance placed upon affidavits allegedly executed by attesting witnesses denying execution of the Will. Referring to Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Court reiterated that affidavits are not substantive evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act unless the deponent is made available for cross-examination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the First Appellate Court had substantially complied with the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and that no illegality or perversity existed in the concurrent findings upholding the validity of the Will.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the civil appeal and affirmed the judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and Karnataka High Court.

Cause Title: Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) & Ors. v. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 521)

Appearances

Appellants: Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate, Bina Gupta, AOR

Respondents: Vinay Navare, Senior Advocate, with Madhusmita Bora, Pawan Kishore Singh, Dipankar Singh and Pavithra V.

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: