Madras High Court
Mr.G.Anand vs Mrs.Satiswari on 8 October, 2021
TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 23.07.2024 Pronounced on:27.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
TOS.No.18 of 2015
and
C.S. No.325 of 2013
TOS. No.18 of 2015:-
Mrs.G.Saroja @ Pattammal
1.Mr.G.Anand
2.Mrs.Geetha
3.Mrs.Shanthi
(Petitioners 1 to 3 brought on record
as LRs of deceased sole plaintiff vide
order dated 08.10.2021)
.. Petitioners/Plaintiffs
..Vs.
1.Mrs.Satiswari
2.Mr.S.Ravi
3.Mrs.Kavitha
4.Mrs.Vijaya
5.Mrs.Usha
6.Mr.S.Suresh
7.Mr.Sankar
..Caveators/Defendants
Prayer: Original Petition has been filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the
Indian Succession Act of XXXIX of 1925 for the grant of Probate to prove
the Will dated 28.12.1968 in common form and that probate thereof to have
effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu.
C.S.No.325 of 2013
1/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
1.Mrs.Satiswari
2.Mr.S.Ravi
3.Mrs.Kavitha
4.Mrs.Vijaya
5.Mrs.Usha
6.Mr.S.Suresh
7.Mr.S.Sankar
..Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Mrs.G.Saroja @ Pattammal
2.Mrs.P.Prema
3.Mr.P.Paramanandam
4.Mrs.P.Leela
5.Mr.P.Sekar
6.Mrs.P.Selvi
7.Mrs.P.Meenu Naresh
8.Mr.P.Ramesh
9.Mrs.Sheela Rajan
10.Mrs.V.Ramani
11.Mr.V.Kumar
12.Mr.V.Balasubramanian
13.Mr.V.Prakash
14.Mrs.V.Prathiba
15.Mr.Gajarajan (Deceased)
16.Mr.G.Anand
17.Mrs.Geetha
18.Mrs.Shanthi
(Defendants 17 & 18 brought on record
as LRs of the deceased 15th defendant
vide order dated 13.10.2020)
...Defendants
PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC r/w Order IV Rule 1
of the O.S. Rules, praying to pass judgment in favour of the plaintiff against
the defendants,
2/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
(a) for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in respect of
Schedule mentioned property.
(b) declaring the Settlement Deed dated 26.02.2007 registered as
Doc.No.403/2007 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, T.Nagar, executed and
registered by the first defendant to and in favour of the defendants 15 and
16 herein is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs;
(c) directing the defendants to render accounts from the date of plaint
till date of partition by metes and bounds;
(d) to pay the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.C.Jagadish in
TOS No.18 of 2015
for defendants 1, 15 & 16 in
C.S. No.325 of 2013.
For Defendants : Mr.G.Surya Narayanan, for
Mr.D.Nellaiappan for
Plaintiff in C.S. No.325 of 2013
Defendants 1 to 7 in
TOS No.18 of 2015
D2 to D14 -Exparte in
C.S. No.325 of 2013.
COMMON JUDGMENT
The plaintiff/petitioner in TOS. No.18 of 2015 has filed OP. No.736 of 2013 seeking grant of probate of Will dated 28.12.1968 executed by Late. V.Subramania Mudaliar. The defendants in TOS. No.18 of 2015 have filed 3/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 C.S. No.325 of 2013 against the plaintiffs seeking partition of the suit property.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the same litigative status as in TOS. No.18 of 2015.
3. The averments in the OP/Testamentary Original Suit are as follows:
The Testator, V.Subramania Mudaliar died on 16.04.1970, leaving behind an unregistered Will dated 28.12.1968. The plaintiff has been named as Executrix under the said Will. The Testator died leaving behind three sons and a daughter, with the daughter being named as the sole Executrix under the said Will and Testament of Late.V.Subramania Mudaliar. The wife of the Testatrix, Mrs.Lakshmi Bai Ammal pre-deceased the Testator on 11.04.1963. The parents of the Testatrix also pre-deceased him. One of the sons of the Testator, viz., V.S.Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar died on 21.09.2010 leaving behind the respondents 1 to 7 as his legal heirs. Similarly, another son viz., V.S.Palani Mudaliar died on 21.09.1989 leaving behind the respondents 8 to 15 as his legal heirs and the other son, 4/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 V.S.Varadharaja Mudaliar died on 27.12.1983 leaving behind respondents 16 to 20 as his legal heirs.
4. According to the plaintiff, the Will dated 28.12.1968 was executed by her father in a sound and disposing state of mind, memory and understanding and it was also duly executed and attested in a manner known to law. The petitioner further stated that the respondents 1 to 7, legal heirs of Late.V.S.Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar, issued a legal notice dated 05.07.2012, claiming partition and in and by a reply dated 14.07.2012, the petitioner has referred to the Will dated 28.12.1968 and denied the claim for partition. The respondents, without giving any rejoinder to the said reply notice, have filed a suit in C.S. No.325 of 2013. In the suit for partition, it has been stated that the Will has not been probated and in such circumstances, in order to prove the Will in accordance with law, the Original Petition in OP. No.736 of 2013, has been filed.
5. The defendants having not specifically denied the execution and attestation of the said Will, except for stating that the Will has to be proved in accordance with law and the defendants have also kept quite for 42 years 5/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 before claiming for partition. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's right to apply for probate has arisen only on 05.07.2012, when a notice demanding the partition was issued. Hence, the petition for probate is well within time.
6. In view of the Caveat being filed by the defendants 1 to 7, the Original Petition was converted into the above Testamentary Original Suit and the second defendant has filed a written statement which has been adopted by the defendants 1 & 3 to 7.
7. The sum and substance of the written statement of the second defendant is as follows:-
The petition for probate is highly belated and therefore, the petition is barred by limitation, being filed beyond the period of three years and that too without proper and satisfactory explanation. The defendants have denied the knowledge reply alleged Will dated 28.12.1968 as claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff. According to the second defendant, regarding knowledge of the Will of Late.V.Subramania Mudaliar, the defendants came to know about the alleged Will only for the first time in the reply 6/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 notice dated 14.07.2012.
8. The second defendant has also denied the claim of the plaintiff to be in exclusive possession of the suit property. The said property is the subject matter of the Will and since the father died intestate, the defendants 1 to 7 are also co-sharers and deemed to be in joint possession along with the plaintiff. Further, the defendants have also stated that the suit property was purchased by their mother, Late.Mrs.Lakshmi Bai Ammal and the property being her absolute property, her husband Late.V.Subramania Mudaliar, that is their father, had no right to execute the Will in respect of the property as if he was the owner of the same. The Will is a forged one and rightly, the defendants had filed C.S. No.325 of 2013 seeking partition and separate possession.
9. The defendants further stated that the plaintiff would have manipulated and created the Will for the purpose of claiming the property exclusively for herself and therefore, the plaintiff cannot place any reliance on the created Will. Both the attesting witnesses to the alleged Will are also no more and the plaintiff has not bothered to take steps for more than 43 7/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 years and therefore, she cannot now take steps to probate the Will and cannot take advantage of her own fault by saying that the attesting witnesses are dead. The claim is barred by limitation and no cause of action is available to seek grant of probate.
10. C.S. No.325 of 2013 has been filed by the defendants 1 to 7 in TOS. No.18 of 2015, who are legal heirs of one Late.Mr.V.S.Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar, as plaintiffs, they are seeking partition and separate possession. The plaint in brief, 10 (i). The suit property belonged to Mrs.Lakshmi Bai Ammal, who died intestate on 11.04.1963, leaving behind her husband, Late.V.Subramania Mudaliar, three sons viz., Mr.V.S.Palani Mudaliar, Mr.V.S.Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar, Mr.V.S.Varadharaja Mudaliar and a daughter, Mrs.Saroja @ Pattammal. According to the plaintiffs, since the grandmother Late.Mrs.Lakshmi Bai Ammal died intestate, each of the children along with their father would get 1/5th share in the suit schedule mentioned property and that they are the legal heirs of one of the sons, Mr.V.S.Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar and they are jointly entitled to 1/5th share in view of the intestate demise of their grand mother Mrs.Lakshmi Bai 8/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 Ammal.
10 (ii). The plaintiffs issued a lawyer's notice on 05.07.2012, seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share, since by that time, the grandfather also died and share of the children increased from 1/5th to 1/4th. The first defendant alone sent reply on 14.07.2012 stating that the property of Late.Mrs.Lakshmi Bai Ammal, has been partitioned among her legal heirs which was evidenced by Koorchit which had been reduced into writing on 30.10.1965, under which, the suit property was allotted to Late.V.Subramania Mudaliar who died on 16.04.1970, leaving behind a Will dated 28.12.1968 bequeathing the suit property to the first defendant who claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since the unregistered partition deed is not valid in the eye of law, it is not binding on the plaintiffs and further the Will has not been probated. According to the plaintiffs, the Will has not seen the light of the day for more than 40 years and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition.
10 (iii). The first defendant has executed a Settlement Deed in favour of D15 and D16. The said settlement deed is also not binding on the 9/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the settlement deed registered as Doc. No.403 of 2007 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs as the settlement deed was executed and registered in respect of the entire suit property.
11. In order to meet the said plaint allegations, the first defendant filed a written statement, the sum and substance of which is as follows:
11(i). The relationships between the parties are not denied. However according to the first defendant, after the mother's demise, her estate has been divided amongst her legal heirs, as evidenced by Koorchit which has been reduced into writing on 30.10.1965, which evidences a past transaction and therefore, the same does not require registration. Under the said Koorchit, the father Late.V.Subramania Mudaliar was allotted the suit property and he was therefore entitled to execute the testamentary instrument, accordingly, the father executed his last Will and Testament on 28.12.1968 before his death on 16.04.1970. The Will was given effect to and acted upon. The first defendant has mutated the revenue record in her name, Patta was also issued on 14.10.1993 based on the unprobated Will. 10/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 11(ii). The first defendant further stated that the 1st plaintiff viz., Mrs.S.Satiswari, was very much aware of the said Will dated 28.12.1968. The husband of the first plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 7, Late.V.S.Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar himself was alive at the relevant time and he died only on 21.09.2010. The said Late.V.S.Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar never made a claim for the suit property only because, he was fully aware of the Will dated 28.12.1968 and therefore, it is not open for his legal heirs to question the said Will. Further, the first defendant stated that she is in exclusive possession of the suit property since 1968 and all the three sons were living with their father and they were fully aware of the execution of the Will and it was only on the request of the father himself, the first defendant shifted to the subject property viz., G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 and has been in occupation of the same, right from 1968.
11 (iii). According to the first defendant, all the family members including the plaintiffs were fully aware of the Will and lawful possession of the same under the said Will executed by Late. V.Subramania Mudaliar. The settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants, 11/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 15 & 16 was only out of love and affection and therefore, the settlement deed is very much valid in the eyes of law and the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the relief of declaration. The first defendant has further stated that only because the plaintiffs 1 to 7 issued a legal notice on 05.07.2012, after a period of 42 years claiming partition, the first defendant has been necessitated to seek probate. Therefore, according to the first defendant, in view of the Koorchit dated 30.10.1965 and the Will dated 28.12.1968, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share and consequently, any of the relief as prayed for in the suit.
12. The following issues were framed in C.S. No.325 of 2013 on 02.07.2019:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of the 1/4th share in the schedule mentioned property?
2. Whether the settlement deed dated 26.02.2007 is true and valid?
3. Whether the defendants are liable to render accounts?
4. Whether the 1st defendant had ousted the plaintiffs from enjoyment of the suit property?
5. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled? 12/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
13. The following issues are framed in TOS. No.18 of 2024 for adjudication:-
1. Whether the Will dated 28.12.1968 is true and genuine?
2. Whether the Petition for Probate is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to grant of probate?
4.To what other reliefs the parties are entitled?
14. I have heard Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel for the plaintiffs in TOS. No.18 of 2015 and defendants 1, 15 & 16 in C.S. No.325 of 2013 and Mr.G.Surya Narayanan, learned counsel for Mr.D.Nellaiappan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs in C.S. No.325 of 2013 and defendants 1 to 7, in TOS. No.18 of 2015.
15. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, would submit that the testator was alloted the subject property under Koorchit dated 30.10.1965 and subsequently being his property, he has executed the last Will and Testament on 28.12.1968, in favour of his daughter. He would further state that the Testator died only on 16.04.1970 and immediately upon the demise of the Testator, the last Will and Testament dated 28.12.1968 was acted upon and the beneficiary being the 13/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 daughter effected mutation of records in her favour, including obtaining a patta. There has been no claim from any of the other legatees and according to the learned Senior Counsel, the Will was accepted by everyone and there was no occasion for the said Will to be probated. After the demise of one of the sons of the Testator, his wife and children have sought for partition as if Mr.V.Subramania Mudaliar died intestate. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that during the lifetime of the husband of the 1 st defendant and father of defendants 2 to 7, the Will was not challenged and all the sons of the Testator were well aware about the execution of the Will in favour of the only daughter, Saroja.
16. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the cause of action for filing the petition seeking grant of probate arose only when a notice was issued by the legal heirs of Late.V.S.Sundaravadivel Mudaliar on 05.07.2012 in Ex-P18 and by such time more than 40 years has lapsed and both the attesting witnesses were not alive and therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to invoke Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Act'). He would refer to the evidence of the son of one of the attesting witnesses, Mr.K.A.Kuppusami Pillai and also wife of the second attesting 14/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 witness, Mr.Karthick Chander, who have spoken about the signatures of the attesting witnesses.
17. The learned Senior Counsel would also state that, excepting 1965 Koorchit, there was no other document available to compare the signature of the Testator in the Will and arrive at its genuineness. In fact, he would invite my attention to the proceedings before this Court when a Forensic Expert was summoned and he had initially expressed difficulty in comparing the signatures available in the Will with the signatures found in the Koorchit. However, the Court directed the expert to give an opinion on the available material and accordingly, the Forensic Department has filed the report in Ex.C1. The report states that the signatures found in the Will and the MOU (Koorchit) are not matching.
18. Countering the said findings in the Forensic Report, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the MOU was executed close to 3 years prior to the last Will and Testament and therefore, they were not contemporaneous signatures to enable a proper comparison. He would also state that the opinion of an Expert is a weak evidence which cannot be relied 15/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 on by the Court and it will not supersede substantial evidence. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.V.Ramanujam would submit that there is no contra evidence on the side of the contesting defendants to disprove the signatures in the Will dated 28.12.1968.
19. He would further submit that mandates of Section 69 of the Act has been duly complied with by examining P.W.1 and P.W.2, who have spoken about the signatures of the attesting witnesses. He would also emphasis on the fact that the identity of the said witness P.W.1 & P.W.2 has not been disputed by the defendants.
20. He would also state that in the written statement filed in the above Testamentary Original Suit, though the defendants have denied the signature of the Testator, however it has come out in evidence that the defendants had no occasion to see or inspect the Will when the written statement was filed and therefore no weightage can be attached to the allegations made by the defendants and at best, they were the ipse dixit of the defendants.
21. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam would further state that in terms of Section 16/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 69 of the Act, the Will has been proved and moreover the Will was never challenged for over 4 decades and the legal heirs of one of the sons of the Testator are estopped from challenging the Will at this length of time. He would therefore pray for the TOS being decreed and the suit for partition being dismissed.
22. Per contra, Mr.G Suryanarayan, learned counsel appearing for the defendants, would submit that, till 1993 nothing was done based on the alleged Will. He would also state that the signatures in the Will and the Koorchit, which has been admitted by the plaintiffs, were totally contradictory even to the naked eye and therefore, when the signatures in the MOU has been admitted and in fact, formed the very basis of vesting title in the Testator and the said signature not tallying even one bit with the signatures found in the Will, it is a clear case of planned forgery and such a Will cannot be upheld by the Probate Court.
23. He would further submit that the propounder did not introduce the Will before this Court and therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the Will has come from proper custody. He would also state that the reasons for delay 17/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 have not been satisfactorily explained as required under Original Side Rules. He would also invite my attention to the evidence of P.W.3 who has admitted that the property was occupied by Sundaravadivel Mudaliar and his son. He would also refer to the mutation of records with the Corporation of Chennai in the year 1993 alone when the Testator had died even in 1970. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of the Testamentary Original Suit and a decree being passed in the suit for Partition.
24. In reply, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.T.V.Ramanujam would submit that the reasons for delay in approaching the Court by way of filing a probate petition have been duly explained in Paragraph No.8 of the Original Petition. He would also refer to the report of the expert and attacked the findings arrived at by the Forensic Expert.
25. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff in the Testamentary proceedings and Mr.G.Suryanarayan, learned counsel for the contesting defendants.
26. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is the case 18/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 of the plaintiff that her father had executed an unregistered Will on 28.12.1968, under which she has been named as the sole Executrix. The wife of the Testatrix, viz., Mrs.Lakshmi Bai Ammal, pre-deceased the Testator even in the year 1963 and therefore the surviving legal heirs of the Testator were only three sons and one daughter. In terms of the Will, the daughter is the sole beneficiary and all the three sons have been disinherited. In fact, all the three sons as well as the daughter are no more and the next generation is continuing to litigate this issue.
27. The case of the plaintiff is that, soon after the demise of her father, the Will which was known to all the sons, was duly acted upon and the plaintiff has also obtained patta and mutated revenue records in her favour which was with the full knowledge of her three brothers. It is relevant to note here that none of the three brothers objected to the said acts of exercising rights over the subject property by their sister, Saroja claiming absolute right under last Will and Testament dated 28.12.1968.
28. For the first time, after the demise of one of the sons of the Testator, viz., Mr.V.S.Sundaravadivel Mudaliar, his legal heirs issued a 19/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 lawyer's notice on 05.07.2012 claiming partition of the subject property. A reply dated 14.07.2012, was sent by the plaintiff referring to the Will dated 28.12.1968 and denying the claim for partition. Following up the said legal notice, the legal heirs of Late.Mr.V.S.Sundaravadivel Mudaliar have filed the Suit for partition. Simultaneously, in view of the claim for partition, the plaintiff has approached the probate Court seeking grant of probate of the Will dated 28.12.1968.
29. The major ground of attack by the defendants is that the plaintiff has not sought for probate for over 40 years and with such passage of time, the attesting witnesses have also died and therefore, the plaintiff has invited such a situation upon herself where she is unable to produce the attesting witnesses to prove due execution and attestation of the Will under challenge.
30. The issue cannot be approached from this angle alone. Admittedly, the husband of the first defendant and father of the defendants, 2 to 7 Late.Mr.V.S.Sundaravadivel Mudaliar was alive until 21.09.2010 and for 42 years, neither the said Sundaravadivel Mudaliar nor his two brothers Palani Mudaliar and Varadaraja Mudaliar challenged the Will, dated 20/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 28.12.1968. The sons of the Testator cannot feign ignorance of the Will executed by their father, especially when the sole beneficiary viz., their sister has taken steps to mutate the revenue records in her favour, besides also obtaining patta. No doubt, these acts of mutation have been questioned by the learned counsel for the defendants stating that it was only in 1993, 23 years after the demise of the Testator by which time, two of the brothers viz., Palani Mudaliar and Varadaraja Mudaliar had passed away. However the other son of the Testator, Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar was very much alive and even assuming the mutation was only in 1993, he never questioned the acts of his sister mutating revenue records and obtaining patta, thereby, exercising ownership rights over the subject property claiming under Will, Ex.P8
31. In such circumstances, the plaintiff alone cannot be blamed for the attesting witnesses not being alive to give evidence and speak about due execution and attestation of the Will. Only in 2012, for the first time, a claim for partition was made by defendants vide Ex.P18 notice. Admittedly, the only person who could have spoken about the Koorchit, execution of Will and mutation of the records was the first defendant, wife of 21/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 Late.V.S.Sundaravadivel Mudaliar. However, the first defendant never chose to enter the witness box to speak about the family circumstances and to dispute the truth and genuineness of the Will, especially when her husband had not taken any such steps during his lifetime.
32. With regards to the signature, there is a visible and marked difference in the signatures of the Testator in Koorchit, Ex.P7 and Will Ex.P8 (TOS. No.18 of 2015). However it is to be borne in mind that the Will was executed close to 3 years after the MoU and therefore, the said document cannot be said to be a contemporaneous document. Courts have consistently held that, for purposes of comparison of signatures only contemporaneous signatures can be taken. Here, signatures available 3 years prior to the execution of the Will alone were sent for comparison and admittedly, they could not provide a proper basis for the Forensic Department to compare the same and give a proper finding.
33. On 12.04.2018 this Court has passed the following Order :
“ Pursuant to the order dated 04.04.2018, Thiru.T.S.Alagesan, Deputy Director, Forensic Science Department, Chennai, is present today. The Court has interacted with him. He submitted that only two documents normally not sufficient to compare the signature and the same was put to the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant in the 22/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 suit. Learned Counsel submits only two admitted signatures of Subramania Mudaliar is available. Hence, the same was put to the Deputy Director. He submitted that he will try to compare the signature with the admitted signature in the document available with him.
2. In view of the same, the Deputy Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Chennai shall carry out the exercise of comparing disputed signature with the admitted signature available in two documents already given to him. The applicant shall pay necessary fee directly to the Forensic Science Department, Chennai on 13.04.2018 without fail. The Deputy Director is required to compare the signature of the Subramania Mudaliar and one of the witness Karthik Chandar available in both documents and file a report before this Court by 26.04.2018.”
34. Thus, it is clear that even in the first instance, the Deputy Director, Forensic Science Department, has expressed inability to compare the signatures and he has only stated that he would try to compare the signatures. Thereafter, the report has been given finding that the signatures in the Koorchit and the Will are not by one and the same person.
35. The Deputy Director of Forensic Department, has been cross examined by the leraned counsel for the plaintiff. In his cross examination, he has stated that he was assigned the task of comparing the signatures of the Testator Late.Mr.V.Subramania Mudaliar, available in the Will and Koorchit and also signature of Mr. Karthick Chander, who has attested both the Will and the Koorchit. In his cross examination, he has stated that 23/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 normally they would require contemporary signatures closer to the disputed date of signature. However, he would justify saying that 3 years gap is justified as a contemporary period. He further stated that only two admitted signatures of the Testator were provided to him and even in the Koorchit, he has stated that signatures of the Testator did not tally, however, he terms it as natural variation. He has also stated that handwriting and signature of a person can vary over a period of years and for regular writers working in office there are possibilities for marked variations over a gap of 3 years. While speaking about the signature of Karthick Chander, the attesting witness, C.W.1 has stated that he found characteristic differences. He has also admitted that though he asked for admitted signatures during the year 1965 to 1968, but they were not provided. He has further stated that since there are marked differences between the admitted and disputed signatures, it was sufficient for him to come to a conclusion that the signatures of the Testator and one of the attesting witnesses in the Will were not the signatures found in the admitted Koorchit document.
36. Insofar as the discrepancies in the signatures, the law is fairly well settled with regard to the evidentiary value of the opinion of a handwriting 24/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 expert. Courts have consistently held that the art of comparing signatures has not developed as much as the comparison of fingerprints which is possible in a very scientific manner. First and foremost, the admitted signature provided for comparison should be closer in point of time to the disputed signature. Here, there is no second opinion to the fact that there is total variation in the admitted signature and the signature in the Will. However, the Will was executed close to 3 years after the execution of the Koorchit and therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the signature in the Koorchit was contemporaneous to the signature in the Will. In fact, at the first instance, even the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Department had reported before this Court that it would not be possible for him to compare the signatures with the available documents. However, only pursuant to directions of this Court, he has attempted to make a comparison and in such process, has arrived at various findings and ultimately found that the same person namely, the Testator as well as one of the attesting witnesses, have not signed both the documents.
37. In J.Naval Kishore Vs. D.Swarna Bhadran, reported in (2008) 1 CTC 97, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court discussed the ratio laid 25/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases pertaining to opinion of handwriting expert. In S.Gopal Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2184, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that expert evidence is a weak type of evidence and the Court should not consider it as conclusive. In Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1091, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of handwriting expert and that the expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of handwriting expert and it would be unsafe to base a conviction solely on the expert opinion without substantial corroboration.
38. In Murarilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1980 SC 531, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again held that having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reason for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a 26/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted.
39. In Unnamalai Ammai Ammal v. Sithapathi Reddiar, reported in AIR 1961 Mad 90, this Court held that in evaluating the evidence of handwriting expert on the question of genuineness of the signature alleged to be that of the Testator, the Court must keep in mind that :-
1) very few people always sign in the same manner on all the occasions
2) the opinion of an expert as to the genuineness of a signature should be received with great caution, especially in a case where there is positive evidence of persons who saw the Testator sign the Will
3) all the tests evolved by experts in the matter of comparison of handwriting and signature are merely tentative in character, and
4) opinion evidence is usually very weak evidence.
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (by LRs) and others, reported in AIR 1964 SC 529 held that expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take place of substantive evidence. 27/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
41. In Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy V. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) through Lrs and Another, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 220, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that, it is well settled that the Court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantative in nature. It is also settled that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and the Court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of the given case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it.
42. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the decisions referred to herein supra, it is clear that the report of the handwriting expert has to be taken note of with great care and caution. In the present case, I have more than one reason to not consider the report of the handwriting expert. Firstly, the signatures provided to the handwriting expert were not contemporaneous signatures and therefore, they could not have formed the basis for enabling the expert to even draw a comparison. Secondly, the expert himself had at first instance expressed his inability to compare the signatures available.
28/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
43. Therefore, in light of the same and also in view of the principle laid down by this Court in Unnamalai Ammai Ammal’s case (referred herein supra), it is common that a person may not sign in the same manner on all occasions. In the instant case, the signatures available are close to three years apart and in such circumstances, even though the signatures vary even on the face of the two documents, for which even an opinion of the expert was not required in the first place, considering the over all facts and circumstances and evidence on record, I am not inclined to accept the report of the handwriting expert.
44. The specific case of the defendants in the written statement is that the Will has not seen the light of the day for several years and therefore, the probate petition is barred by limitation. They have not only denied knowledge about the Will executed by the Testator, besides that, they have also alleged that the Will is a forged instrument and the Testator's daughter wanted to usurp the entire property unto herself and with such ulterior motive, she had forged her father’s signature and brought about the Will. It does not stand to reason as to why even the signatures of the attesting witnesses should be forged. In fact, if the theory of forgery has to be 29/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 accepted, then the plaintiff would not have really slept over the matter for so long and she would have only had her interested witnesses attest the Will, so that the Will can be easily proved before a Court of law. The fact that the sons of the Testator never raised any dispute and allowed their only sister to enjoy the subject property during their respective lifetimes would also indicate that they were fully aware of the Will and only under such circumstances, there was no claim for partition from any of the three sons.
45. Now, I proceed to test the evidence which would be the substantive evidence available on record.
46. One K.Murugan has been examined as PW.1 in TOS. No.18 of 2015. He is the son of Late.K.A.Kuppusami Pillai, the first attesting witness to the Will dated 28.12.1968. In his chief examination, he has stated that his father died in the year 1990. He has produced the Death Certificate of his father. He has identified his father's signature in the Will dated 28.12.1968. In his cross examination, he has stated that he knew the deceased V.Subramania Mudaliar during his childhood. He has further stated that his father knew the Testator since his father was a Tamil Pandit in a school 30/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 where one D.T.Deivasigamani was the Headmaster and the Testator is the Sammandhi of the said Deivasigamani. He has denied the suggestion that the signature found on the Will is not that of his father and that his father could not have attested the Will on the said date. No suggestion has been put to PW1 that he is not the son of the first attesting witness. Infact, it has come out in cross examination that the family of attesting witness was acquainted with the Testator for long and therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 affirming the signature of his father, one of the attesting witnesses, is credible.
47. One K.Sabitha, has been examined as P.W.2 in TOS. No.18 of 2015. She is the wife of the second attesting witness, Karthick Chander. She has stated that her husband passed away in the year 2003 and she has marked the original Death Certificate and legal heirship certificate of her husband. She has also identified the signature of her husband, Karthick Chander in the Will dated 28.12.1968. In her cross examination, she has stated that the Testator was her family friend. She has denied a suggestion put to her that the signature found in the Will is not that of her husband, Late.Karthick Chander and that she is falsely deposing in support of the 31/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 plaintiff who is known to her. Even to P.W.2, no suggestion has been put questioning her identity or relationship to the second attesting witness. In the light of the positive evidence adduced by P.W.2, affirming her husband's signature, her evidence certainly assumes significance.
48. The plaintiff has examined herself as P.W.3 in TOS. No.18 of 2015 and as D.W.1 in C.S. No.325 of 2013. The Koorchit dated 30.10.1965, has been marked P7 and the original Will dated 28.12.1968 has been marked as Ex.P8 and original Death Certificate of the Testator has been marked as Ex.P9. The mutation of revenue records with various authorities including the Electricity Department and the Patta has been marked as Ex.P12 to P16. In her cross examination, she has stated that her father asked her to move into the suit property stating that the same was meant for her and based on the Will executed by her father, she shifted her residence to the suit property even in the year 1968. She has stated that her brother, Late.V.S.Sundaravadivel Mudaliar handed over the original Will, executed by her father, to her after two months from the date of death of her father. Curiously even though this answer was elicited in cross examination of P.W.3, no suggestion has been put to P.W.3 that Sundaravadivel 32/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 Mudaliar did not hand over the original Will to the plaintiff. She has also stated that Sundaravadivel Mudaliar was a building contractor and with her permission, he was using the shed which was located adjacent to the suit property to keep wooden logs. She has denied that her nephew Ravi, kept his materials in the suit property. In fact she has stated that her nephew only removed the wooden logs kept by his father when the plaintiff’s daughter in law wanted to start a clinic in the year 2005. She has also stated that her relationship with her brothers was cordial till the death of Sundaravadivel Mudaliar in the year 2010. She has further stated that she saw the Will only after the death of her father. From her evidence, it is clear that she did not have any role in the execution of Ex.P8 Will and the Will was in fact executed to the knowledge of all the three sons of the Testator and her brother Sundaravadivel Mudaliar alone handed over the Will few months after the demise of their father. She has denied the suggestion that her father has not signed the Ex.P8 Will and that the same is forged.
49. The son of Sundaravadivel Mudaliar, S.Ravi, has been examined as D.W.1 in TOS. No.18 of 2015 and as P.W.1 in C.S. No.325 of 2013. In his cross examination, he has stated that his family was residing in T.Nagar 33/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 from 1968 and later, they moved to Chetpet and from there to Anna Nagar. He would also state that all the properties allotted under the Koorchit to his father were already sold and he would also admit that his mother was alive, however he denied the suggestion that his mother was aware of the Will and that is why she has not been examined in the proceedings. He has also admitted that he is not in possession of any documents to establish that he has been in possession of the suit property between 1983 and 2007. He has also stated that he has not inspected the original Will before filing the written statement. In fact, he deposed that till date of his examination he has not inspected the original Will. He has also feigned ignorance of the fact that Karthick Chander has signed as an attesting witness in the Ex.P8, Will.
50. Despite specific answer by P.W.3, Saroja that D.W.1, Ravi had removed the logs kept by his father in the said portion of the subject property, the same has not been denied by D.W.1 in his examination. In fact, in the proof affidavit filed by D.W.1 Ravi, he has even gone to the extent of stating that his grandfather viz., Late.V.Subramania Mudaliar, the Testator has no right to execute the Will claiming to be the absolute owner of the subject property. He further states that the defendants have reasons to 34/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 believe that the Will is a forged one.
51. In the partition suit in C.S. 325 of 2013, parties have let in evidences independently. D.W.1, Ravi in the TOS has examined himself as P.W.1 in the partition suit and marked Ex.P1 to P10. The plaintiff, since deceased in TOS, examined herself as D.W.1 and marked Exhibits D1 to D7. Geetha Mohan, daughter of the Testatrix and G.Anand, son of the Testatrix have been examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3 respectively and through D.W.2, Exhibits D8 to D14 have been marked and through D.W.3, Exhibits D15 to D19 have been marked.
52. Geetha Mohan, the 17th defendant in C.S. No.325 of 2013, has been examined as D.W.2. She is the granddaughter of Deivasigamani Mudaliar. Her brother, Anand has been examined as D.W.3. She has stated that D.W.3 and D.W.2 are the maternal grand children of the Testator through the only daughter Saroja. In her chief examination, she has stated that her grandfather even in the year 1968 vacated all the tenants and asked her mother to shift to the subject property.
35/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
53. She has also stated that her maternal uncle, Late.V.S.Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar, who was then subsequent to the demise of the Testator, who was then using the front room in the ground floor of the suit property as office room had vacated the same and all materials in the said office room were handed over to the plaintiff. She has further stated that her mother had exercised right as absolute owner of subject property and even demolished the entire back portion and reconstructed the same in 1998. At this point of time, her maternal uncle Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar was alive. She would also state that her mother executed a settlement deed on 26.02.2007 to the knowledge of her maternal uncle, Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar settling the property in favour of her father, Gajarajan and brother G.Anand, the 16th defendant. She has also spoken about the acquaintance of the attesting witnesses to the Testator. The documents exhibited on her side includes patta, settlement deed, planning permission for construction of new building in the year 1998. In her cross examination, she has stated that in 1968, she was studying in 4th standard. She has further stated that she personally knew about the execution of the Will at that time. She has denied the suggestion that the Will is a forged document. She has stated that her mother has been enjoying the property for over 48 years and even her 36/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 brother's birth certificate reflects the very same address. She has also stated that none of her uncles resided in the subject property. She has also stated that all her uncles and aunties were aware of the Will executed by her grandfather and that is why they never claimed during their respective lifetimes. She has also denied that the settlement deed executed in favour of her father and brother were invalid. She also denied the suggestion that her mother was not in exclusive possession of the property.
54. The grandson of Subramania Mudaliar, through the plaintiff Saroja, G.Anand, the 16th defendant in C.S. No.325 of 2013, has also been examined as D.W.3 and he has exhibited savings Bank passbook of the year 1975, Domestic Gas Card standing in the name of his father dated 10.10.1973, his father's driving license and his birth certificate dated 22.11.1974 which all go to show that he and his family i.e., he, his mother Saroja, father Gajarajan and sister, Geetha have all been enjoying the subject property right from the early 1970s.
55. From the above evidence, it is clear that the daughter Saroja and her family have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the subject property. It is also seen from the planning permission granted for demolition 37/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 and reconstruction as well as mutation of revenue records that the daughter Saroja has acted as the absolute owner of the subject property. Admittedly, she is only one of the four legal heirs of her father Late.V.Subramania Mudaliar. She has been enjoying the property to the exclusion of her brothers and even when the property was demolished and reconstructed, no objection has been raised by any of her brothers. The only document under which the plaintiff could have staked a claim is the Will and no other document.
56. From the evidence available on record, it is thus clear that the sons of Subramania Mudaliar were fully aware of the father executing a Will in favour of his only daughter Saroja and the same was not only not questioned by the sons, but it appears to be with their consent that the Will was acted upon and their sister and her husband and family started enjoying the subject property to the exclusion of the other legal heirs.
57. Moreover, Saroja, the plaintiff in the TOS, in her examination has categorically stated that it was only Sundaravadivel Mudaliar, her brother who handed over the original Will to her, that too after the demise of her 38/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 father. This portion of the evidence has not been challenged. Therefore, when the husband and the father of the defendants was fully aware of the Will and also consented and accepted the terms of the Will, it is not open to his heirs to question the said Will. The contention that the wife of Late.V.S.Sundaravadivel Mudaliar, the first defendant, was not examined on purpose because she was personally aware of the Will also cannot be lightly brushed aside. She was the senior most member available in the opposing camp and her evidence could have certainly added value. However, she has stayed away from the witness box and the reason for the same as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff is also possible and acceptable.
58. Having held that the report of the handwriting expert cannot be taken as a valid piece of evidence in the present case, for various reasons set out herein above and in view of the fact that the mandates of Section 69 of the Act, has been duly complied with by the plaintiff by examining son of one of the attesting witnesses as well as the husband of the second attesting witness, due execution and attestation of Ex.P8, Will can be accepted. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, not only 39/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 the defendant's husband and father did not choose to challenge the Will during his lifetime, even the two other sons of the Testator did not challenge the Will and after the lifetime of all the three sons alone the notice for partition has been issued.
59. Considering the evidence available on record especially rejecting the sons of the Testator having knowledge about the Will, the next generation of heirs of one of the sons, namely, Late.V.S.Sundaravadivel Mudaliar cannot claim a better right and seek for partition when the sons of the Testator themselves had acquiesced to the Will executed by their father.
60. Issue Nos.1 & 2 in TOS. No.18 of 2015:-
Regarding limitation, this Court in S.Vatsala V. K.S. Mohan, reported in (2016) SCC Online Mad 53, has held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply to proceedings for probate as per the Original Side Rules. Even otherwise, the Will, though executed in 1968, came to effect in 1970 on the demise of the Testator, there is no challenge to the same during the lifetime of Class 1 legal heirs of the Testator and only after the death of Sundaravadivel Mudaliar in 2010, a lawyer's notice came to be issued by his 40/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 legal heirs in 2012. Therefore the starting point of the cause of action is only the said lawyer's notice in Ex.P18 and immediately thereafter, the plaintiffs have chosen to initiate probate proceedings. In such circumstances, I am unable to countenance the argument of the learned counsel for the defendants that the probate petition is hopelessly barred by limitation.
61. From the foregoing discussions and for all the above reasons, I hold that Ex.P8 Will has been duly proved in accordance with Section 69 of the Act and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed.
62. Issues in C.S. No.325 of 2013:-
In view of the Will in Ex.P8 being upheld, nothing much survives for consideration in the partition suit, as the right to seek partition to the plaintiffs in C.S. No.325 of 2013 would be available only if the deceased V.Subramania Mudaliar had died intestate. The daughter viz., Late.Sarjoja @ Pattammal having been the sole beneficiary under Ex.P8, Will was entitled to execute the settlement deed in favour of her husband and sons. Even with regard to the feeble attempt made by the plaintiffs in the partition suit, challenging the Testator's entitlement to even execute the Will, treating 41/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 the property as his own, it has come out in evidence that the Koorchit has been acted upon and the properties allotted to the sons of Late.V.S.Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar have also been sold. This is an admission on the side of the plaintiffs in the partition suit. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the Testator had no right to execute the Will. Therefore, viewed from any angle, C.S.No.325 of 2013 is liable to be dismissed.
63. Issue No.3 in TOS. No.18 of 2015:-
However, I notice that the Original Petition was originally filed by the Executor and sole Legatee under the Will, Ex.P8, by the daughter, G.Saroja alias Pattammal. Pending the proceedings, she died and her legal heirs have been brought on record in and by order dated 08.10.2021, in Application No. 3615 of 2021. In view of the demise of the sole Executrix, the present plaintiffs are not entitled to grant of probate and they are only entitled to grant of Letters of Administration with the Will dated 28.12.1968, annexed of Late Mr.V.Subramania Mudaliar. Accordingly, the suit is decreed and Letters of Admistration, having effect through out Tamil Nadu, shall be issued in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in TOS. No.18 of 2015, with the Will 42/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 dated 28.12.1968, annexed. Upon their executing a security bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the Assistant Registrar (O.S-II), High Court, Madras.
64. In fine, the Testamentary Original Suit in TOS. No.18 of 2015 is decreed and Civil Suit in C.S. No.325 of 2013 is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
27.09.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rkp C.S.No.325 of 2013 Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs:
P.W.1. - Mr.S.Ravi Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiffs:
S.No. Exhibits Date Description
1. Ex.P1 22.01.1943 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 22.01.1943
registered as Doc No.128/1943 in the SRO, North
Madras.
2. Ex.P2 05.07.2012 Computer generated copy of the death certificate of
Mrs. Lakshmi Bai
43/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
3. Ex.P3 05.07.2012 Computer generated copy of the death certificate of
Mr. Subramania Mudaliar
4 Ex.P4 05.07.2012 Computer generated copy of the death certificate of
Mr.V.S.Sundara Vadivelu
5 Ex.P5 28.02.2007 Certified copy of the Settlement Deed by the 1st
defendant in favour of the 15th and 16th defendants. 6 Ex. P6 27.06.2012 Original Encumbrance Certificate 7 Ex.P7 05.07.2012 Copy of the suit notice addressed to the defendants 1 to 14 with postal receipts.
8 Ex.P8 -- Original acknowledgment cards by 1st defendant and 13th defendant.
9 Ex.P9 -- Original returned covers addressed to 4th, 7th and 11th defendants 10 Ex.P10 14.07.2012 Original reply notice from the counsel for the plaintiff.
Witnesses examined on the side of the defendants:
D.W.1 - Mrs.G.Saroja @ Pattammal D.W.2 - Mrs.Geetha Mohan D.W.3 - G.Anand Documents marked on the side of the defendants:
S.No. Exhibits Date Description
1. Ex.D1 20.07.1994 Sale deed
2. Ex.D2 30.10.1965 Copy of the koorchit
3. Ex.D3 30.10.1965 Photocopy of the Koorchit
4 Ex.D4 28.12.1968 Photocopy of the Will executed by
V.Subramaniam Mudaliar
44/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
5 Ex.D5 -- Photocopy of the Property Tax Demand Card
6 Ex.D6 -- Photocopy of the Electricity Charges Card
7 Ex.D7 -- Office copy of the O.P.No.736/2013 letter
converted as T.O.S.No.18/2015
8 Ex.D8 26.07.1998 Original Planning permission obtained for
construction of building in the suit property
9 Ex.D9 28.07.1998 Original challan for remittance of building
license fee issued by the Corporation of Chennai
10 Ex.D10 18.08.1998 Original letter
11 Ex.D11 25.08.1998 Original challan for remittance of building
license fee issued by the Corporation of Chennai
12 Ex.D12 25.08.1998 Original challan of payment to the Secretary,
Indian Overseas Bank
13 Ex.D13 16.04.1998 Original Patta of the suit property in the name of
G.Saroja
14 Ex.D14 26.02.2007 Original settlement deed
15 Ex.D15 10.10.1973 Domestic Gas Customer Card no.8145302
standing in the name of Gajarajan
16 Ex.D16 15.03.1975 Savings Account Bank Pass Book of the State
Bank of India issued in the name of Gajarajan,
father and natural guardian of Minor Gajarajan
Anand
17 Ex.D17 -- Savings Account Bank Pass Book of State Bank
of India in the name of Mrs. Geetha.
18 Ex.D18 -- Driving License Book of D.Gajarajan
19 Ex.D19 22.11.1974 Birth Certificate of G.Anand
C.S.No.18 of 2015:-
Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs:
P.W.1 - K.Murugan P.W.2 - K. Sabitha P.W.3 - Mrs. G. Saroja 45/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013 Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiffs:
S.No. Exhibits Date Description
1. Ex.P1 24.04.1990 Photocopy of the certified copy of the death
certificate of my father K.A.Kuppusamy Pillai
2. Ex.P2 28.12.1968 Mr.K.Murugan's (PW1) father's signature in the
Will
3. Ex.P3 11.10.1990 Certified copy of the Legal Heirship Certificate
of Late K.A.Kuppusamypillai issued by
Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Vellore
4 Ex.P4 12.04.1968 Office copy of the letter address by Kuppusamy
pillai to the director School Education, Madras
5 Ex.P5 25.03.2003 Original Death certificate
6 Ex. P6 24.09.2003 Original Legal Heirship certificate
7 Ex.P7 30.10.1965 Original "Kurchit"
8 Ex.P8 28.12.1968 Original Will
9 Ex.P9 10.04.1995 Original Death Certificate of Mr.Subramania
Mudhaliar
10 Ex.P10 22.07.2013 Computer generated Death Certificate of
Mr.V.S.Sundara Vadivelu
11 Ex.P11 29.01.2017 Computer generated Death Certificate of
Mr.V.S.Varadaraja Mudaliar
12 Ex.P12 -- Original order for transfer of Electricity
Connection
13 Ex.P13 -- Original property tax demand card.
14 Ex.P14 -- Original property tax demand card.
15 Ex.P15 19.10.1993 Original Patta standing in the name of the
plaintiff
16 Ex.P16 -- Original electricity charges card
17 Ex.P17 -- Sale Deed Doc. No.1351 of 94 on the file of
Sub Registrar, Saidapet executed by
V.S.Sundaravadivelu.
18 Ex.P18 05.07.2012 Legal notice issued by Defendant to plaintiffs
19 Ex.P19 14.12.2012 Reply legal notice with acknowledgement
46/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
20 Ex.P20 -- Copy of the Plaint with summons in
C.S.NO.325 of 2013 served on the defendants.
Witnesses examined on the side of the Court:
C.W.1 – Mr.T.S.Alagaesan
Documents marked on the side of the defendants:
S.No. Exhibits Date Description
1. Ex.C1 - Forensic report along with the opinion (two sheets
along with the covering letter)
2. Ex.C2 - Xerox copy of the Communication letter addressed to
the Joint Registrar, Original Side, High Court.
27.09.2024
rkp
P.B.BALAJI,J.
rkp
47/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TOS. No.18 of 2015 & C.S. No.325 of 2013
TOS.No.18 of 2015
and
C.S. No.325 of 2013
27.09.2024
48/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis