Madras High Court
S.P.Krishnakumar vs S.P.Padmavathy on 2 September, 2022
Author: A.A.Nakkiran
Bench: A.A.Nakkiran
1 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.08.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
T.O.S. No.6 of 2003 and C.S.No.803 of 2016
1. S.P.Krishnakumar
2. S.P.Vijayakumar Plaintiffs in TOS and
Defendants in C.S
..Vs..
1. S.P.Padmavathy
2. S.P.Thirulok Kumar Defendants in TOS and
Plaintiffs in
CS
Prayer:- (i) This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed, under Sections
232, 255 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, for the reliefs as stated
therein.
(ii) This Civil Suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and
Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, for the reliefs, as stated therein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016
For Plaintiffs : Mr.S.Rajendrakumar for
(Ms.S.Sivashanmugam ) (For 2nd Plaintiff – TOS)
For Defendants : Mr.A.Palaniappan-TOS
Mr.Ravichandran Sundaresan-D1-CS
Mr.S.Rajendrakumar for Ms.S.Sivashanmugam - D2-CS
****
COMMON JUDGMENT
This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed to grant Letters of Administration, with the Will annexed, to the Plaintiffs, as the legatee of the deceased, having effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu Limited to the properties set out in the affidavit of assets.
2. This Civil Suit has been filed, seeking a judgement and decree, seeking appointment of a Commissioner for partition of the Plaintiffs' 2/4th share in the suit properties and for separate possession of the same and for costs.
3.The Plaintiffs in Testamentary Original Suit are the Defendants in Civil Suit. The Defendants in Testamentary Original Suit are the Plaintiffs in Civil Suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016
4.The case of the Plaintiffs in Testamentary Original Suit is that the Plaintiffs and the 2nd Defendant are the sons of one S.K.Paranthaman, who is the husband of the 1st Defendant. The said S.K.Paranthaman, who ordinarily resided at No.30, Zakaria Colony, 4th Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai-94, died on 17.11.1998 at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. The deceased possessed of properties within the State of Tamil Nadu and he executed a Will, dated 1.7.1998 in the presence of the witnesses. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased. The Plaintiffs have impleaded all the kith and relatives of the deceased as the Defendants. No executor has been appointed under the said Will. The amount of assets, which is likely to come into the hands of the Plaintiffs does not exceed in the aggregate the sum of Rs.4,90,000/-- and the net amount of the said assets, after deducting all the items, which the Plaintiffs, is by law allowed to deduct, is only of the value of Rs.4,80,000/-. The Plaintiffs undertakes to duly administer the property and the credits of the said Testator, in any way concerning his Will, by paying first his debts and then, the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and to make a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same in the Court, within six months from the date of grant of Letters of Administration, with the Will annexed to the Plaintiffs and also render a true https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 account of the said property and credits within one year from the said date. No application has been made to any District Court or delegate or any other High Court for probate or any Will of the said deceased or Letters of Administration with or without the Will annexed to his property and credits. Hence, this Testamentary Original Suit suit has been filed, seeking the reliefs, as stated above.
5.The case of the Defendants, in Testamentary Original Suit is that the relationship between the parties and the deceased is true. The suit properties are the self acquired properties of the deceased. No Will was written by the deceased and during his last stage, he told them that they shall share all the properties equally amongst all the four legal heirs. The deceased was leading a drunken life and the Plaintiffs were also forced to drink liquors and hence, the Defendants were living separately. However, the deceased had provided money for their maintenance and there was no misunderstanding between them. The deceased nominated the 1st Defendant for the service terminal benefits. There was also a discussion with them about the settlement of the properties on 6.12.1998. Since the Plaintiffs were in possession of the properties, the Defendant approached them for partition and the Plaintiffs had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 given an undertaking on 8.6.1999 to give their respective shares. A legal notice dated 21.8.1999 was sent to the Plaintiffs, demanding partition. The Defendants had also filed a separate suit for partition in CS.No.227 of 2000, wherein interim injunction was granted. Before that, the Plaintiff did not disclose about the Will. The Will was not at all executed at any point of time and it is an afterthought to grab the properties illegally. The signature of the Testator is not that of him. The witnesses were the drinking partners of the deceased. The Will was forged and concocted since the Plaintiffs sent a legal notice not to disburse the terminal benefits to the 1st Defendant. The Employer had issued a letter dated 12.3.1999 to disburse the dues in equal shares amongst all the legal heirs. The 1st Defendant had issued a legal notice on 26.2.1999 to the Employer for sanction of family pension. The Letters of Administration is not executable. In such circumstances, the Testamentary Original Suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the plaint filed in Civil Suit, the Plaintiffs, who are the Defendants in Testamentary Original Suit, have reiterated the averments made in the written statement filed in Testamentary Original Suit. The suit properties are the self acquired properties of the deceased and the Plaintiffs and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 Defendants are legal heirs of the deceased. It is further stated that since the Defendants are not allowing the Plaintiffs to enter into the suit properties and are unable to have actual physical possession of the same, this Civil Suit has been filed, seeking for partition of the suit properties.
7. In the written statement filed in Civil Suit, the Defendants, who are the Plaintiffs in Testamentary Original Suit, while reiterating the averments made in the plaint in Testamentary Original Suit, have averred that the suit for partition is unsustainable, since there is a valid testamentary disposition made by the deceased. The relationship between the 1st Plaintiff and the deceased was not cordial and the 1st Plaintiff deserted the deceased on several occasions. The 1st Plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the settlement entered into between the deceased and the 1st Plaintiff and she had also filed O.P.No.452 of 1990 for judicial separation and MC.No.386 of 1991 for maintenance. Thereafter, the deceased was paying maintenance. The deceased thought it fit to make testamentary disposition of his properties. The deceased had also given some dispositions to the 1st Plaintiff. The rights of the parties have to be worked out on the basis of the Will left https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 by the deceased. In such circumstances, the Civil Suit is liable to be dismissed.
8. Both in Testamentary Original Suit and Civil Suit, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
In Testamentary Original Suit (1)Whether the alleged Will dated 01.07.1998 executed by late S.K.Paranthaman is true and valid?
(2)Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to partition as prayed for in the plaint.
(3)To what relief, the Plaintiffs are entitled?
In Civil Suit (1)Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to partition in view of the fact that there is a testamentary disposition of the plaint schedule properties by late S.K.Paranthaman by Will dated 1.7.1998.
(2)To what relief, the Plaintiffs are entitled?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016
9. In Testamentary Original Suit, on the side of the Plaintiffs, Ex.P1 to Ex.P34 were marked and on the side of the Defendants, Ex.D1 to D3 were marked.
10.In Civil Suit, on the side of the Plaintiffs, Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked and on the side of the Defendants, Ex.D1 to D5 were marked and Ex.C1 was marked. Both in Testamentary Original Suit and Civil Suit, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and DW.1 and DW.2 were examined.
11. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side in both Testamentary Original Suit and Civil Suit.
12. Since the matter in both cases are similar wherein the parties are contesting vice versa in both cases, the parties are referred to as per the rank in Testamentary Original Suit.
13. The learned counsel for the 2nd plaintiff has submitted that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of the said S.K. Parandaman who is the father of the the plaintiffs herein and the 2nd defendant herein and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 husband of the 1st defendant herein. The plaintiffs' father executed a balanced Will dated 01.07.1988 in the presence of witnesses bequeathing the properties to all his children and the said Will was executed by him in a sound and disposable state of mind. He died on 17.11.1998 leaving behind him the parties as his legal heirs.
14. He has further submitted that the 1st defendant is living separately along with her youngest son i.e. S.P. Trilok Kumar who is the 2nd defendant herein due to misunderstanding with the father of the plaintiffs herein. She has filed many cases against the plaintiffs' father. After deserting the plaintiffs' father, 1st defendant cannot seek partition in the suit property, while the plaintiffs' father distributed his property equally to all the children.
15. The learned counsel for the 2nd plaintiff has further submitted that the 2nd plaintiff examined P.W.3 who knew the signature of his father, was one of the attesting witnesses to prove the said Will despite another witness Mr.Kosalram was not examined since he is father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff are not co-operating each other in this regard. Thus, as the Will was proved by the plaintiffs, he prays for grant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 of Letter of Administration in favour of the plaintiffs and seeks to dismiss the suit filed by the defendants herein.
16. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the 2nd plaintiff has relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of V. Kalyanaswamy(Died) by LRs. and Anr. Vs. L. Bakthavatsamal(Died) by LRs. and Ors. wherein it is observed as follows:
"61. Though the expression used is ‘if no such attesting witness can be found, inter alia, it bears the following interpretation’. The word ‘such’ before ‘attesting witness’ is intended to refer to the attesting witness mentioned in Section 68 of the Evidence Act. As far as the expression ‘found’ is concerned, it would cover a wide variety of circumstances. It would cover a case of an incapacity to tender evidence on account of any physical illness. It would certainly embrace a situation where the attesting witnesses are dead. Should the attesting witness be insane, the word “found” is capable of comprehending such a situation as one where the attesting witness, though physically available, is incapable of performing the task of proving the attestation under Section 68 the Evidence Act, and therefore, it becomes a situation where he is not found."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016
17. Further, he relied on the Judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of "Bam Jassa Kunwar and Anr. Vs. Sahu Narain Das and Ors. reported in AIR 1946 All 178 wherein it has held as stated below:
"9. If a document is filed in Court, unless it is admitted by the other side under Orders 12 and 13, Civil P.C., the party producing the document has to prove it according to law. In the case of documents, other than documents which the law requires to be attested, a person producing such document has, when lie alleges that the document bears the signature or has been written wholly or in part by any person, to prove his allegations unless those allegations are admitted by the other side : see Section 67, Evidence Act. There is mo special mode of proof prescribed, the signature or the handwriting may be proved by the production of persons who have means of knowing the signature or the handwriting or by production of experts or by comparison with the admitted signature or handwriting of the executant. In the case of documents required by law to be attested, not only the signature has to be proved but it has to be proved that the document was duly attested. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. Under Section 70, Evidence Act, if execution is admitted by the executant of the deed it is not necessary, as against him, to prove attestation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 The other exception is in Section 69, Evidence Act, that if no such attesting witness can be found or if the document was executed in the United Kingdom it is only necessary to prove the signature of the executant and that the attestation of at least one attesting witness is in his handwriting. If I may, with great diffidence, say so, the words "can be found" are not very appropriate and, to my mind, they must be interpreted to include not only cases where the witness cannot be produced because he cannot be traced but cases where the witness for reasons of physical or mental disability or for other reasons, which the Court considers sufficient, is no longer a competent witness for the purpose as is provided in Section 68, Evidence Act. The law requires one more formality that a document required by law to be attested shall not be admitted in evidence until one attesting witness, at least, has been called for proving its execution provided there be such a witness alive and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence (Section 68, Evidence Act). The word "execution" must of course include attestation as required by law. If, however, the document was registered and its execution was not specifically denied it is not necessary to call an attesting witness.
18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that the 1st defendant's husband was drunkard and he also forced 1st and 2nd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 plaintiffs to drink liquor. The 1st defendant herein could not bear such as activities and hence left her matrimonial home and live separately along with the 2nd defendant who is the youngest son among other sons. The 1st defendant's husband died on 17.11.1998 intestate without writing any Will. After his death, the 1st defendant went her husband house and asked her respective share in the suit schedule property as brother of her husband prepared a family settlement. But, she did not agree for that settlement. Later on, the plaintiffs gave an undertaking on 08.06.1999 to the Sub-Inspector of Police stating that they are willing to give the shares of the defendants in the suit schedule property. At that time also, they never stated anything about the Will which is said to have executed by the said S.K.Parandaman. While being so, when the defendants sought for their share in the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs refused to do so. Hence, the 1st defendant issued a legal notice dated 21.08.1999. Since no reply was sent by the plaintiffs herein, the 1st defendants have filed the suit for partition.
19. It has been further submitted that the Will in question was not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 genuine and created one. Despite notice dated 21.08.1999 was sent by the defendants herein, the plaintiffs have not whispered about the will either by way of reply or any other communication. Further, the signature in the Will is not that of S.K. Parandaman.
20. The learned counsel for the defendants has further submitted that while one of the witness Kosalram is alive, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to examine him. Hence, he would pray for dismissal of the T.O.S. and for allowing the Civil Suit.
21. The learned counsel for the defendants has relied on the Judgment of "Babu Singh and others Vs. Ram Sahai Alias Ram Singh" reported in (2008) 14 Supreme Court Case 754 wherein it is observed as follows:
20. Harnek Singh may be a person who had been won over by the appellant but there must be some evidence brought on records in that behalf. The learned Trial Judge, in our opinion, rightly rejected the bare statement made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the other attesting witness had gone out of the country. Respondent himself did not say so on oath.
He did not examine any other witness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016
21. He did not make any attempt to serve another summons upon him. No process was asked for to be served by the court. Interestingly, a statement was made by a counsel before the appellate court. That statement is said to have been made before the appellate court by the plaintiff himself on 29.10.1999. We are at a loss to understand how such a statement by a counsel or by the respondent himself was taken into consideration for the purpose of invoking Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. A purported statement, not as a witness but through the counsel, cannot be said to be an evidence. We have noticed hereinbefore that learned Trial Judge did not accept such a statement. In that view of the matter, the first appellate Court, in our opinion, committed a serious legal error.
22. He has further placed his reliance on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case "M.Kandiah Pillai (died) and Six others Vs. S. Mehalingam and Seven others" reported in 2000(IV) CTC 490 wherein it has been observed as follows:
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the magnum opus judgment H. Venkatachal Iyenger v.B.N. Thimmajamma and others, in support of the case of the plaintiff. No doubt it is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 settled law that the onus of proof is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator as required by law may be sufficient to discharge the onus. No doubt as in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The lower appellate court has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Koar and others, where it has been held.
" In cases where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple Its between the plaintiff and the defendant. What generally is an adversary proceeding becomes insuch cases a matter of the court's conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence ted by the propounder of the Will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the Will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the Will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the marking of the Will."
10. It is also to be notice that P.W.2 in his capacity as attestor has spoken to his seeing the testatrix affixing her thumb https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 impression only in the last page of Ex.A-1. He had not stated that he saw testatrix affixing her thumb impression in all the pages of Ex.A.1. The provisions of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act are not satisfied. The lower appellate court has also pointed out that the propounder had failed to prove that P.W.2 was present propounder had failed to prove that P.W.2 was present when the testatrix affixed her thumb impression in all the pages of Ex.A.1".
23. The learned counsel for the defendants has further relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case " C.S. Devakumar and C.S. Sethu Vs. K.S. Krishnakumar and others, reported in 2010-5-L.W.878 wherein it has observed as follows:
"27. Point No.3:-
Whether the learned Single Judge has committed any legal error in comparing the signatures of the testatrix in the Will by himself with the admitted signature, for granting probate?
a) The learned counsel for the appellants took serious objection for the learned single Judge comparing the signature to himself on the different pages of Ex.P2 - Will. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that the appellants did not seek for an expert opinion. In our considered view, there is no bar under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for the Court to compare https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 the signatures and to come to the conclusion.
b)In fact, the only witness/DW1 examined on the side of the defendants, deposed inconsistently in this regard. While it is pleaded in the written statement that there is variation in the signatures, the appellants did not seek for an expert opinion.
c)On the other hand, the variation in the signatures was explained by the propounder by letting in satisfactory evidence.
PW-2, the attesting witness, deposed as follows in the chief examination:-
"Executrix was in sound state of mind while signing the Will. The executrix had good eye sight at the time of executing the Will. It is not true to say that the executrix was blind at that time."
The aforesaid version of PW-2 was not challenged by the appellants during the cross-examination.
d) PW-4 deposed during the chief examination as follows:-
"At the time of the execution of the Will, the said Jagadambal's hands were shaking and she was a very aged lady. Otherwise she was of sound health and of sharp mind."
e)But DW-1 deposed inconsistently and the learned single Judge correctly described the evidence of DW-1 as falsity. DW- 1 spoke as if the testatrix used to put only thumb impressions and she could not sign the documents. No such plea was taken in the written statement. It was established beyond doubt that the testatrix used to sign the documents and Ex.P21 was the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 document that could prove that the testatrix used to sign the documents. Further, yet another document also contains the signature of the testatrix. Hence, the learned single Judge correctly rejected the evidence of DW-1 as false."
24. This Court considered the said submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
25. It is an admitted fact that the said S.K. Parandaman died on 17.11.1998 who is survived by his Wife S. Padamavathy who is the 1st defendant herein and sons namely, S.P. Krishnakumar, who is the 1st plaintiff and Mr. S.P. Vijayakumar who is the 2nd plaintiff herein and Mr. S.P. Thirulok Kumar who is 2nd defendant herein are his legal heirs.
26. It is also an admitted fact that all the properties are self acquired properties of the deceased.
Issue No.1 in TOS.
27. In this case, the 2nd plaintiff examined as P.W.2 wherein P.W.2 deposed in his chief examination that he was present when Ex.P1-Will was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 written by S.K. Paranthaman. He has further stated that he knew all the witnesses in which 1st witness was one Mr.Vadivelu, who was the friend of the testator. The 2nd witness S.K. Karnan is the elder brother of the Testator. The 3rd witness is one Kosalram, who is the father-in-law of S.P. Krishnakumar. The first two witnesses passed away. At the time of execution of Ex.P1-Will, the testator was in sound state of mind and health.
28. However, P.W.3- R. Kalavathy, deposed that her father Late Mr. Radhakrishnan had acquaintance with late Mr. Paranthaman and she was informed that her father signed as witness in the Will of late Shri. Paranthaman. As she was taking care of her father bank accounts, she well knew her father's signature and identified her father's signature in the Will when it was shown to her.
29. In this case, the P.W.2 deposed that one Mr. Vadivelu had signed as first attestor whereas P.W.3 deposed that her father Mr. Radhakrishnan had signed as a attestor. So, there is a contradiction between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. This aspect was not clarified by the 2nd plaintiff's counsel. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016
30. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the 2nd plaintiff has not proved that who had signed in the Will as first attestor.
31. In this case P.W.1 deposed that Kosalram is alive. No steps have been taken by the 2nd plaintiff to examine this witness. The reason stated by the 2nd plaintiff for non-examination of this witness, is not acceptable.
32. In this case, the Will is not proved by the 2nd plaintiff by oral and documentary evidence. As this Will is not proved in accordance with law by the 2nd plaintiff, the 1st issue is decided against the plaintiffs. Issue No.2 in T.O.S. & C.S.
33. In this case, a perusal of Ex.D1- a letter dated 08.06.1999 given by the 1st plaintiff to the Sub-Inspector, R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai-24. it reads as under":
".... v';fs; brhe;j jk;gpak[ /; jhahUk; mtu;fSf;F nruntz;oa brhj;Jf;nfhup gy Kiw te;jhu;fs;.
,jw;fpilapy;/ v';fs; tPlo; y; Rgfhupak; elf;ftpUg;gjhy; xU thuk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 fHpj;J mjhtJ ,d;W (08.06.1999) Kjy; xU thuk; fHpj;J ,U tPll; hu;fspd; bghpatu;fs; Kd;dpiyapy; ngrp gpupj;J bfhs;fpnwhk; vd;W cWjpf; Twfpnwhk;/"
34. In the aforesaid letter, the 1st plaintiff never whispered anything about the Will.
35. Further, even the 1st defendant has sent a legal Notice dated 21.08.1999 demanding partition in the suit property, the plaintiffs never sent reply and never whispered with regard to the Will.
36. In view of the above, Testamentary Original Suit is dismissed. Furthermore, the 2nd plaintiff has admitted in Ex.D1 with regard to partition.
37. Under such circumstances, the defendants 1 and 2 in the Testamentary Original Suit and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the Civil Suit are entitled to partition as prayed for.
Issue No.3 in T.O.S. and 2 in C.S https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016
38. In view of the aforesaid observations, the defendants 1 & 2 in T.O.S. and the Plaintiffs 1 & 2 in Civil Suit are entitled to 2/4th share in the suit schedule property.
T.O.S.
39. In the result, the Testamentary Original Suit is dismissed. C.S.
40. In the result, the Civil suit is decreed as prayed for and accordingly preliminary decree is passed. No Costs.
02.09.2022 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Lbm/Srcm https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 In T.O.S. List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
P.W.1 – Mr.S.P. Vijayakumar
P.W.2-- Mr. N.Sakthivel
P.W.3-- Ms. Kalavathi
List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Defendants:-
D.W.1 – Smt. Padmavathy
D.W.2-- Mr. S.P. Thirlok Kumar
List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
1. Ex.P1 is the Original Will
2.Ex.P2 is the Letter written by the 1st defendant to the 2nd plaintiff.
3. Ex.P3 is the Letter written by the 1st defendant to the 2nd plaintiff
4. Ex.P4 is the Letter written by the 2n plaintiff to their family friend Pachamma
5. Ex.P5 is the letter written by the 1st defendant to her brother.
6. Ex.P6 is the letter written by the 1st defendant to her brother.
7. Ex.P7 is the letter written by the 1st defendant to her husband.
8. Ex.P8 is the letter written by the 1st defendant to one Mrs.Chitra Ammal.
9. Ex.P9 is the letter written by the 1st defendant
10.Ex.P10 is the letter written by the 1st defendant to her husband.
11.Ex.P11 is the letter written by the 1st defendant to her brother and brother's wife.
12. Ex.12 is the letter received by the 2nd plaintiff's father from Legal service authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016
13. Ex.13 is the another letter received by the 2nd plaintiff's father from Legal service authority.
14. Ex.14 is the Quwait employment agreement of the 2nd plaintiff.
15. Ex.15 is the acknowledgment of sending money by the 2nd plaintiff.
16. Ex.16 is the counterfoil of the Fess of the 2nd defendant.
17. Ex.17 is the counterfoil of the Fess of the 2nd defendant.
18. Ex.18 is the salary certificate of the 2nd defendant's father.
19. Ex.P19 is the family ration card
20. Ex.P20 is the letter written by the 1st defendant.
21. Ex.21 is the letter written by the 1st defendant.
22. Ex.22 is the letter written by the 1st defendant.
23. Ex.23 is the Maintenance petition filed by the 1st defendant.
24. Ex.24 is the certified copy of affidavit of the 1st defendant.
25. Ex.25 is the certified copy of the petition filed by the 1st defendant.
26. Ex.26 is the certified copy of counter filed in O.P. No.452 of 1990 by the 2nd plaintiff's father.
27. Ex.27 is the certified copy of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd plaintiff's father in I.A. No.645 of 1990
28. Ex.28 is the certified copy of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd plaintiff's father in I.A. No.645 of 1990
29. Ex.P29 is the certified copy of the list of articles filed by the 2nd defendant.
30 Ex.30 is the certified copy of order in I.A. No.642 of 1990 in HMOP https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016 No.452 of 1990.
31. Ex.P31 is the certified copy of Decree in I.A. No.642 of 1990 in HMOP No.452 of 1990.
32. Ex.32 is the copy of the Ration Card of Radhakrishnan (Attester)
33. Ex.33 is the photo copy of the service book (Attester)
34. Ex.P34 is the photo copy of the pension payment order. List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Defendants:-
1. Ex.D1 is the complaint to the Kodambakkam Police Station by plaintiffs
2. Ex.D2 is the letter from Madras Dock Labour Board to 1st defendant.
3. Ex.D3 is the advertisement regarding sale of Nandiambakkam Land.
in Civil Suit List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
P.W.1 – Mrs.S.P. Padmavathy
P.W.2-- Mr. S.P. Thirulok Kumar
List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Defendants:-
D.W.1 – Mr. S.P. Krishnakumar List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
1. Ex.P1 is the Death Certificate
2.Ex.P2 is the Legal Heirship
3. Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of 2016
4. Ex.P4 is the Acknowledgment Cards.
List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Defendants:-
1. Ex.D1 is the letter written by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant with partition deed with clean copy.
2. Ex.D2 is the proposal plan with clean copy.
3. Ex.D3 is the letter sent by Chennai Collector to the defendant with clean copy.
4. Ex.D4 is the letter written by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant with clean copy.
5. Ex.D5 is the letter written by defendants to the Chief Account Officer-II with clean copy.
1. Ex.C1 is the failure report by the Mediation Centre.
02.09.2022
Lbm
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of
2016
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Lbm
Pre-Delivery Judgement in
T.O.S.No.6 of 2003 and
CS.No.803 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29 TOS No.6 of 2003 and C.S. No.803 of
2016
02.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis