Really depends on the state it's in. When we sold DH's Mum's house, we achieved £50k more by decorating it, replacing carpets, and a new kitchen, than the offers we'd got for it when we first put it on the market with the old (functional kitchen), and tired carpets/decor. We only spent £10k on it to have a cheap new Howden's kitchen fitted (like for like), new carpets throughout and a week's labour from a decorator to paint all the walls (mostly wallpaper!).
We've just sold my Mum's house which was in a much better state as she was house-proud. We just cleared it of the possessions/junk etc., minimalised down to bare bones of furniture (removed things like side tables etc) and just left bed, sofa, TV, wardrobes, etc. Then spent a couple of days ourselves painting the walls to cover where the pictures had been hung. Yes, it "needed" a new kitchen and bathroom, but that would be personal preference rather than because the existing ones "needed" it, as they weren't old and manky - maybe 10-15 years old. We got an offer for full asking price within 2 weeks of put on market - didn't even get chance for the EA to put a board up!
Some people really do want to buy somewhere "to live in" straight away and have no immediate plans to replace kitchens and bathrooms. If the house is basically sound, things work, etc., lots of people will buy and move in and then do the decorating, replacing kitchens and bathrooms etc at a later date. The question is whether the OP's inherited homes are of that kind of standard, where someone "could" move in and live there, or whether they're too bad for that and they need works doing prior to moving in. If the former, could well be worth "tarting" them up a bit to be more attractive, but if the latter, no point at all as the buyer will be wrecking it as soon as they get the keys, so a bit of paint on the walls is just a waste.