Madras High Court
A.Dhandayuthapani vs S.Senbagavalli on 21 August, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.08.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
T.O.S.No. 49 of 2016
1. A.Dhandayuthapani
2. A.P.Vishnu Prasad
3. A.P.Banupriya
the 3rd petitioner is minor
Rep. by her father and natural guardian
the 1st petitioner. ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
S.Senbagavalli ... Defendant
Prayer : This Suit filed under Sections 232 & 276 of the Indian Succession
Act, read with Order XXV Rule 5 of O.S.Rules, for the grant Letters of
Administration to the petitioners with the Will annexed to the petition, as the
son/daughter-in-law, grand-children/sole beneficiaries under the Will
executed by the deceased A.Meenakshi having effect limited to the State of
Tamil Nadu.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm )
2
For Plaintiffs : Mr. R.Thanjan
For Defendant : Mr. K.V.Babu
JUDGMENT
O.P.No. 590 of 2013 had been filed seeking Letters of Administration with Will annexed relating to a Will dated 09.06.2004 said to have been executed by A. Meenakshi, who died on 21.12.2006.
2. The said Original Petition had been filed by A.Dhandayuthapani, his wife D.Rupavathi, his son A.D.Vishuprathap and daughter A.D.Banupriya, the son, daughter-in-law, grandson and granddaughter of the testatrix A.Meenakshi. The first, second and third respondents G.Komalavalli, S.Senbagavalli and D.Varalakshmi are the daughters of the testatrix A.Meenakshi. The fourth respondent S.Janarthanan is a grandson of the testatrix.
3. It had been stated that the second respondent, S.Senbagavalli had filed a suit for partition in O.S.No. 5669 of 2012 before the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. She had also executed a settlement deed with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 3 respect to her undivided 1/4th share in the suit schedule property in favour of the fourth respondent. It had been stated that the petitioners had only recently found the Will and therefore did not file the petition within three years from the date of death of A.Meenakshi. It was under those circumstances that the petition had been filed seeking Letters of Administration with Will annexed.
4. The second respondent S.Senbagavalli filed caveat and consequently, O.P.No. 590 of 2013 was converted as T.O.S.No. 49 of 2016.
5. In the written statement, the defendant contended that the Will had been manufactured by the plaintiffs. She stated that on the death of the parents, the properties had been inherited by the first plaintiff and by the defendant and by the other two sisters with each entitled to an undivided 1/4 th share. Thereafter, by a settlement deed dated 18.11.2010 registered as Document No. 2438 of 2010 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar, she settled her undivided 1/4th share over the property at old Door No.9, New Door No.17, Plot No.514, 3rd Main Road, CIT Nagar, Est, Chennai – 600 035 measuring 1381 sq.ft., together with superstructure in favour of her son S.Janarthanan, who was the fourth respondent in the Original Petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 4
6. It had been stated in the written statement that the agricultural lands at Uthiramerur Taluk in Kancheepuram District, Sirupinayur Village measuring 4 acres and 79 cents had also been settled in favour of her son S.Janarthanan by a Settlement Deed dated 08.02.2012 registered as Document No. 348 of 2012 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Salavakkam. It had been stated that the defendant had also filed O.S.No. 5669 of 2012 for a Decree and Judgment for partition and separate possession of her 1/4 th share. That suit had been dismissed since the defendant had already settled the property in favour of her son. In that suit, the plaintiffs did not produce the Will dated 09.06.2004.
7. It had been stated that the first and third respondents in the Original Petition executed a registered Deed of Release dated 10.02.2011 registered as Document No. 329 of 2011 in the office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar relating to the CIT Nagar property relinquishing their respective shares in favour of the first plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 5
8. It had been further stated that in the Release Deed, it had been covenanted that the property had devolved by inheritance. There was no mention about the Will. It had been further stated that there has been substantial delay in filing the petition which delay had not been properly explained. It had been further stated that there has been no explanation given how the Will came to be found. It had been further stated that it had not been specifically stated in the Will that the testatrix had affixed the signature in the presence of two witnesses and that the two witnesses were present when the Will was executed and affixed their signtures as witnesses to the Will. It had thus been stated that the Will had been created in a suspicious manner by the plaintiffs. It had therefore been stated that the suit should be dismissed.
9. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:-
“1. Whether the Will dated 09.06.2004, is true and genuine?
2. To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled?” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 6
10. During trial, the first plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined the first respondent in the Original Petition, G.Komalavalli as PW- 2 and the third respondent in the Original Petition D.Varalakshmi as PW-3. The defendant examined herself as DW-1. The plaintiffs marked Exs. P-1 to P-24. Ex.P-2 is the original Will dated 09.06.2004, Exs. P-5 to P-17 are documents relating to the title of the properties, Ex.P-21 is the release deed dated 10.11.2011 registered as document No. 329 of 2011 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar. Exs. P-22 and P-23 are copies of the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No. 5669 of 2012 dated 11.10.2014 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The defendants did not mark any documents.
11. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.R.Thanjan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the defendants.
12. Mr.R.Thanjan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs took the Court through the facts of the case. The first plaintiff is the son of the testatrix A.Meenakshi. The testatrix died on 21.12.2006. The learned counsel contended that she had left behind a Will dated 09.06.2004. He stated that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 7 only prior to the filing of the petition was the Will found and therefore, there has been a dealy in filing the petition seeking Letters of Administration. The learned counsel stated that the defendant is the sister of the first plaintiff. The learned counsel further contended that the Will had been proved in manner known to law by examining PW-2 G.Komalavalli, one of the daughter of the testatrix / another sister of both the first plaintiff and the defendant.
13. The learned counsel stated that the defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No. 5669 of 2012 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties into four equal parts. The learned counsel contended that the suit had been dismissed by Judgement dated 11.10.2014. It had been contended that therefore the property has to devolve by testementary disposition in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel therefore contended that the suit should be decreed.
14. Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the defendant however disputed the contentions. According to the learned counsel, a specific issue had been framed in O.S.No. 5669 of 2012 regarding the Will dated 09.06.2004. In https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 8 answer to issue No.6, it had been held that the claim regarding execution of the Will dated 09.06.2004 is not sustainable.
15. The learned counsel argued that this finding had become final. The learned counsel further pointed out that one of the attesting witnesses was the daughter of the testatrix. He raised strong suspicion over the genuinity of the Will. The learned counsel took the Court through the Will and stated that there has been no compliance of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It was contended that the Will was not proper form and that compliance of the stiuplations in Section 63(c) is mandatory and owing to the failure of the same, the suit should be dismissed.
16. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the materials available on record.
Issue No.I:
17. This issue surrounds around the question whether the Will dated 09.06.2004 is a true and genuine document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 9
18. The Will is an unregistered Will. It had been written in hand. It is in Tamil. It is in two pages. The testatrix had signed in the first page and in the second page. In the second page, the names of the witnesses are given. It does not indicate that they have signed the Will in the presence of the testatrix or that the testatrix signed the Will in t heir presence. In fact, there is no signature of the witnesses. The name of the first witness has been given as Komalavalli, the daughter of the testatrix. The second witness is R.Manikam. Their names and addresses had been given in the Will but it is evident that they ahve not affixed their signatures, Komalavalli had been examined as PW2. During her cross examination, she had been asked about her proof affidavit. The questions and her answers were as follows:-
“Q7: Whether the proof affidavit filed by you has been prepared at your instance or at the instance of Dhandayudhapani by your counsel?
A: I was called by the Counsel and it was made ready, I was asked to sign and it was signed by me.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 10
19. It is thus seen that she had not been made aware of the contents of her proof affidavit.
20. She was further questioned about the date of the Will. Her answer was as follows:-
“Q13: When and where the Will was executed?
A: It was executed after the death of my father. I do not remember the exact date.”
21. She further admitted that she had executed a Release Deed under Ex.P-1 releasing her share over the property at Chennai in favour of the first plaintiff and that even in the said Release Deed, there was no referrence to Ex.P2 Will. The questions and answers were as follows:-
“Q21: You cannot deny the fact that after the death of your mother, along with your sister Varalakshmi, you have executed a Release Deed under Ex.P21 releasing the share ove the CIT Nagar property in favou of your brother Dhandayudapani?;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 11 A: Yes.
Q22: This Release was executed only in the capacity oas ne of the Legal Heir of A.Meenakshi. Am I right?
A: Yes.
Q23: Am I right in saying that even under Ex.P21 Release Deed, there was no referrence about Ex.P2 Will?
A: Yes.”
22. She was further asked about the Will itself and her answer was as follows:-
“Q28: Did your brother, the first plaintiff consulted you, after the death of your mother with regard to Ex.P2 alleged Will?
A: No.”
23. She was further asked about the knowledge of the testatrix to read and write in Tamil. She answered as follows:-
“Q39: Am I right in saying that your mother is an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 12 uneducated person and cannot read and write Tamil?
A: Yes.
Q40: Who read the contents of the alleged Ex.P2 Will to your mother?
A: My uncle.”
24. It must be mentioned that this fact that the contents of the Will had been read over to the testatrix had not been mentioned in the Will.
25. PW-2 further stated that she had informed about the existence of the Will in the year 2006 itself. The questions and answers wewre as follows:-
“Q50: When was the existence of the alleged Ex.P2 Will was communicated to other children of Meenakshi?
A: I informed them in the year of 2006.
Q51: When and where you informed them?
A: In CIT Nagar house, when all of us were sitting.”
26. She further asserted that even during 16th day of ceremony, she had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 13 informed about the existence of the Will.
“Q54: Am I right in saying that even during the 16th day ceremony the existence of the Ex.P2 alleged Will was not communicated to the defendant?
A: No, I communicated.”
27. The evidence of this witness is totally unconvincing.
28. Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is as follows:-
“63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.—
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. ”
29. In the instant case, there is no statement made in the Will that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 14 two witnesses signed in the presence of the testatrix and in the presence of each other and they saw the testatrix signing the Will and that the testatrix also saw them signing. In fact the witnesses never affixed their signatures. Their names and addresses were written.
30. In the Petition, the first plaintiff had very clearly stated that the Will was found only recently before the petition was filed seeking Letters of Administration.
31. O.P.No. 590 of 2013 was filed on 21.12.2012. However, the existence of the Will was informed even in the year 2006 on the 16 th day after the death of the testatrix by PW-2. The statement in the petition that the Will was found recently is therefore a false statement. No credible reason had been given as to why the Will had not been produced before the Court earlier. Even if delay cannot be held against the plaintiff still, it must be explained in proper manner.
32. In AIR 2016 Madras 59 : 2016 (1) LW 577 :: 2016 1 MLJ 153 ::
2016 (1) CTC 257 [ S.Vatsala Vs. K.S. Mohan and Ors.], a Division Bench https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 15 of this Court had held as follows with respect to the delay in filing an application seeking Letters of Administration:-
“33. It is thus quite apparent that all that is required in the eventuality of the Letters of Administration being applied for after a lapse of three years from the date of death of the deceased, is that there should be an explanation forthcoming for the delay in presentation of the application and not that it would be a bar to institution of such proceedings. In our view, such a requirement is so stipulated on account of there being a continuous right, and long delays would throw suspicion on the Will. However, if this delay is explained and the Will proved in accordance with law, there would be no impediment to the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the Will.
Delay and laches:—
35. Though the proceeding filed for grant of probate or letter of administration may not come within the meaning of Article 137 of the Limitation Act in the present case, yet the delay aspect is relevant to test the genuineness of the will propounded.
36. It is also worthwhile to mention that no period is prescribed for filing petition for probate or letters of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 16 administration or Succession Certificate in the Original Side Rules. As extracted above, Rule 9 specifically provides for delay in applying for Probate or Letters of Administration to be explained which is mandatory in nature. Depending upon facts and circumstances of each case, the right to apply for probate or letters of administration made become necessary even beyond three years from the date of death of the testator. One such instance may be when a party came to know of the Will long after the testator's death. Whenever there is delay, it has to explained. More over, if the execution of the Will is proved, the delay in taking steps to probate the Will, will not loom large, since Order XXV, Rule 9 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules has not prescribed any period of limitation and probably, it aims to give explanation alone. Though delay may cause suspicion about the Will, it cannot be held that the application is barred by limitation under Article 137 as it may not be possible to find out as to when the right to apply accrued. Delay in taking steps may be one of the circumstances to be considered while determining the genuineness of the Will. ”
33. In AIR 2023 SC 469 :: 2023 (9) SCC 734 [ Meena Pradhan and Ors. Vs. Kamala Pradhan and Ors.], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 17 follow in paragraph No.10:
“10. Relying on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma [H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 31 : 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 : AIR 1959 SC 443] (three-Judge Bench), Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur [Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, (1994) 5 SCC 135] (three-Judge Bench), Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam [Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91] (two-Judge Bench), Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh [Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 348] (three-
Judge Bench) and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa [Shivakumar v. S haranabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277] (three-Judge Bench), we can deduce/infer the following principles required for proving the validity and execution of the will:
10.1. The court has to consider two aspects :
firstly, that the will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last will executed by him;
10.2. It is not required to be proved with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 18 mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied.
10.3. A will is required to fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:
(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a will;
(b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;
(c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures;
(d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required;
10.4. For the purpose of proving the execution of the will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 19 10.5. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator;
10.6. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with;
10.7. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence;
10.8. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier.
10.9. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and effect of the dispositions in the will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the will while acting on his own free will; ” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 20
34. In the instant case, there is total failure of the mandatory stipulations provided under Section 63(i) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The evidence of PW-2 is totally unconvincing.
35. The delay in filing the application seeking Letters of Administration which had not been properly explained stares in the face of the plaintiffs.
36. One further fact is that Ex.P21, the deed of Release dated 10.02.2011 had been executed by the first and third respondents in the Original Petition/ sisters of the first plaintiff releasing their undivided shares in the property in favour of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff when questioned about the same stated that the said Release Deed was executed without his knowledge. He had not produced the Will even in the suit filed by the defendants. The questions regarding the execution of Ex.P21 were as follows:-
“Q12: You cannot deny the fact that in the said suit, Ex.P2 Will dated 09.06.2004 alleged to have been executed by your mother was not produced?
A: Yes.
Q13: Am I right in saying that by a Deed of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 21 Release dated 10.02.2011, the first and third respondent in the O.P namely Komalavalli and Varalakshmi (Ex.P21) have released their share over the C.I.T Nagar suit property in your favour?
A: Yes.
Q14: Is it correct to state that the said release deed (Ex.P21) was executed by them only in the capacity of the legal heirs of your mother?
A: Yes.
Q15: Am I right in saying that there is no reference about the Ex.P2 Will in Ex.P21 release deed?
A: Yes.
Q16: I therefore put it to you that your claim regarding the execution of alleged Ex.P2 Will by your mother Mrs.A.Meenakshi is incorrect?
A: I deny.
Q17: You cannot deny the fact that had there been a genuine Will executed by your mother there is no necessity for your sisters to execute the said release deed (Ex.P21)?
A: They have written it without my knowledge.”
37. With respect to the delay, PW-1 was again questioned and his answer were extremely unconvincing.
“Q26: When did your mother die?
A: My mother died on 21.12.2006.
Q27: When did you file the present Original https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 22 Petition?
A: 2012.
Q28: Am I right in saying that there is no valid reaon adduced either in your petition or in your proof affidavit regarding the delay in filing the present petition?
A: I do not remember.
Q29: Witness is referred to para 7 of the petition in the O.P., and now stands converted as TOS. Am I right in saying that the averment set out in para 7 of your petition is only a general statement?
A: Yes.
Q30: Am I right in saying that the said statement in para 7 is incorrect for the reason that even much earlier to filing of the present O.P now converted as TOS, you have participated in the partition suit O.S.No. 5669 of 2012 filed by your sister, where you have spoken about Ex.P2 Will?
A: Yes.”
38. It is thus seen that the witness had not come to Court with any intention to speak the truth and with intention to suppres facts and not to state the true facts. It is seen that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 23
(i) the delay in producing the Will and filing Letters of Administration has not been properly explined;
(ii) PW-2 has stated that she had disclosed the existence of the Will even on the 16th day of death of the mother and therefore, the explanation given by the first plaintiff is false;
(iii) there has been no compliance of the mandatory provisions stipulated under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act 1925; and
(iv) Even though two names are given in the Will as witnesses, it is quite clear that they have not signed but have only written down their names.
39. In view of the reasons stated, Issue No. 1 is answered against the plaintiffs that the Will Ex.P-2 is not a true and genuine document. I hold that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 24 the Will had not been proved in manner known to law. Issue No.2:
40. In view of the ansewer to Issue No.1, I hold that the suit will have to be necessarily dismissed.
41. In the result:-
(i) This Testamentary and Original Suit is dismissed, but however taking into consideration the relationship among the parties without costs.
Vsg 21.08.2025
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking Order
1. List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
1. P.W.1 – A.Dhandayuthapani
2. P.W.2 – G.Komalavalli https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 25
3. P.W.3 – D.Varalakshmi
2. List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Plaintiff:-
1. Ex.P1 is original death certificate of V.Arumugam, date of issue 10.06.2003;
2. Ex.P2 is original Will dated 09.06.2004 executed by Mrs.A.Meenakshi;
3. Ex.P3 is original death certificate of Mrs.A.Meenakshi issued on 12.01.2007, died on 21.12.2006;
4. Ex.P4 is original legal heirship certificate of Mrs.A.Meenakshi dated 06.08.2010;
5. Ex.P5 is original sale deed dated 20.07.1968 registered as Doc.No. 2062/1968 in the office of SRO, T.Nagar, executed by State Housing Board to Meenakshiammal;
6. Ex.P6 is copy of the document of sale deed dated 12.04.1970 registered as Doc.No. 807/1970, in the office of SRO, Chengalpattu, executed by M.Munusamy to Meenakshiammal;
7. Ex.P7 is copy of the document of sale deed dated 12.04.1970 registered as Doc.No. 808 of 1970, in the office of SRO, Chengalpattu, executed by Thayarammal to Meenakshiammal;
8. Ex.P8 is copy of the document of sale deed dated 24.04.1972 registered as Doc.No. 867/1972, in the Office of SRO, Chengalpattu, executed by M.Vadivel Naicker and V.Govindasamy to Arumugam;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 26
9. Ex.P9 is Copy of the document of sale deed datd 04.09.1972 registered as Doc.No. 2294/1972, in the office of SRO, Chengalpattu, executed by M.Dhanasekaran to Arumugam;
10. Ex.P10 is Copy of the document of sale deed datd 16.04.1973 registered as Doc.No. 865/1973, in the office of SRO, Chengalpattu, executed by M.Arumugam to Meenakshiammal;
11. Ex.P11 is Copy of the document of sale deed datd 07.05.1973 registered as Doc.No. 1159/1973, in the office of SRO, Chengalpattu, executed by Manicka Naicker to Meenakshiammal;
12. Ex.P12 is Copy of the document of sale deed datd 26.06.1975 registered as Doc.No. 1690/1975, in the office of SRO, Chengalpattu, executed by Radha to Meenakshiammal;
13. Ex.P13 is Copy of the document of sale deed datd 26.06.1975 registered as Doc.No. 1692/1975, in the office of SRO, Chengalpattu, executed by Kamakotti to Meenakshiammal;
14. Ex.P14 is Copy of the document of sale deed datd 24.05.1976 registered as Doc.No. 891/1976, in the office of SRO, Chengalpattu, executed by V.Sadasivam and others to Arumugam;
15. Ex.P15 is Copy of the document of sale deed datd 10.11.1979 registered as Doc.No.200/1980, in the office of SRO, Chengalpattu, executed by C.Suburayanaicker to Arumugam;
16. Ex.P16 is Copy of the document of sale deed datd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 27 20.04.1984 registered as Doc.No.229/1984, in the office of SRO, Salavakkam, executed by V.Vedachalam to Arumugam;
17. Ex.P17 is Copy of the document of sale deed datd 22.07.1986 registered as Doc.No.522/1986, in the office of Sub-Registrar, Salavakkam, executed between V.Arumugam and Govindasamy;
18. Ex.P18 is Original deed of mortgage date 07.12.1998 registered as Doc.No.2360/1998 in the office of Sub- Registrar, T.Nagar, executed by Meenakshi Ammal and V.Arumugam in favour of Teyagarayanagar Fund Limited;
19. Ex.P19 is Original patta bearing No.45, issued by Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Uthiramerur in the name of Arumuga Naicker son of Veerapadra Naicker;
20. Ex.P20 is original extract of Chitta in the name of Meenakshiammal W/o Arumuga Naicker;
21. Ex.P21 is Original release deed dated 10.11.2011 registered as Doc.No.329/2011 in the office of Sub- Registrar, T.Nagar executed by G.Komalavalli and Varalakshmi in favour of A.Dhandayuthapani.
22. Ex.P22 is certified copy of the Decree in O.S.No. 5669 of 2012 dated 11.10.2014 on the file of XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai;
23. Ex.P23 is Certified true copy of the Judgment dated 11.10.2014 in O.S.No. 5669 of 2012 dated 11.10.2014 on the file of XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
24. Ex.P24 is Original Family Card bearing No. 02/G/0451101;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 28
3. List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Defendants:-
1. DW1 – S.Senbagavalli
4. List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Defendants:-
-Nil-
21.08.2025 vsg C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Vsg https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm ) 29 Pre-Delivery Judgment made in T.O.S.No. 49 of 2016 21.08.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:25:00 pm )