Madras High Court
Maradappan vs Rathinmmal on 27 July, 2022
Author: A.A.Nakkiran
Bench: A.A.Nakkiran
TOS.No.33 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 13.07.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
TOS.No.33 of 2003
Maradappan Plaintiff
Vs
1. Rathinmmal
2. Pushpam
3. Gunasekar
4. Selvi
5. Rajendran
6. R.Saravanan (deceased)
7. S.Sudha
8. S.Lingeswaran (minor)
9. Sakshya Sri (minor) Defendants
Prayer:- This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed, under Sections 222
and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, for the reliefs as stated therein.
For Plaintiff : Mr.C.T.Mohan
For Defendants : Mr.K.Mani-DD1 to 6
Mr.V.V.Krishnamoorthy-DD7 to 9
JUDGEMENT
1. This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed, under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, for the grant of probate, in favour of the Plaintiff.
2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is the son of Ramasamy Achari.
One Ramakrishna Achari was the absolute owner of the house and ground and premises at No.19, Bharatheeswaran Colony, II Street, Kodambakkam, 1/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 Chennai-24, comprised in TS.No.34, Puliyur Village, measuring about 1740 sq.ft. , by virtue of the sale deed, dated 7.4.1973 and he died on 24.12.2001 at the said address, leaving behind him the Defendants, as his legal heirs. The deceased had executed a registered Will dated 7.1.1998 in the presence of the two witnesses while in a sound and disposing state of mind. The Plaintiff is named as the executor of the said Will. The parents of the deceased Testator already expired. The Plaintiff has impleaded all the next of kin or other persons interested as the Defendants. The amount of assets, which is likely come into the hands of the Plaintiff does not exceed in the aggregate sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and the net amount of the said assets, after deducing all the items, which the Plaintiff, is by law allowed to deduct, is only of the value of Rs.1,70,000/-. The Plaintiff undertakes to duly administer the property and the credits of the said deceased 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 Probate, with the Will annexed to the Plaintiff and also to render a true 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 to 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 properties and credits. Hence, this Testamentary Original Suit suit has been filed, seeking the reliefs, as stated above.
2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003
3. The case of the Defendants, as set out in the written statement, is that the Defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased Testator Ramakrishna Achari and the Testator was the absolute owner of the Schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 7.4.1973. The Defendants alone are entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased Testator, as he died intestate on 24.12.2001. The Plaintiff is the Class II heir and the Defendants are the Class I Heirs. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share from the estate of the deceased. The deceased never executed any Will on 7.1.1998. Only with an ulterior motive to grab the property, the Plaintiff has invented these facts. The deceased was not in good health prior to his death. The deceased under the influence of alcohol permitted the Plaintiff to live in a portion of the property at free of rent till the deceased was alive. The Plaintiff and his family members did not attend the death rights and ceremonies. The Plaintiff used to pick up quarrels, asking them to vacate the house property and claiming ownership over the property. The Defendants issued a notice dated 10.1.2003, calling upon the Plaintiff to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the portion under his occupation and to pay Rs.250/- per day from 24.12.2001 as damages. The Plaintiff sent a reply dated 13.1.2003, stating for the first time about the existence of the Will, dated 7.1.1998. The Defendants have been paying the statutory charges to the property and the receipts are in possession of the Defendants. The Will is not a genuine one. The Plaintiff undervalued the suit property. In such circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003
4. In the additional written statement filed by the 2nd Defendant, it is averred that the during the life time of the Testator, the land alone was purchased by him, with enjoyment rights, as per the sale deed dated 7.4.1973. In 2008, the land described in the Will was allotted to this Defendant by the Government and patta was given by the proceedings of the Collector and the Tahsildar concerned, dated 28.3.2008. The alleged Will was seen only during the evidence of the Plaintiff. The 2nd Defendant is the owner of the said land and the Plaintiff has no right to claim ownership over the same. The alleged Will was obtained under compulsion and coercion. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. In the reply statement filed by the Plaintiff, it is averred that the allegation that the Testator purchased the land alone, with enjoyment right only is false. The 2nd Defendant should establish as to how the land and building was allotted by the authorities, when it is admitted that the said property was purchased by the Testator under the sale deed dated 7.4.1973. It is not known as to how the property owned by the Testator could have been allotted by the authorities. As early as in 2003, by a reply dated 13.1.2003, the Will was brought to the knowledge of the Defendants. The Will was drafted by his counsel R.Bastimal Jambar. The Plaintiff has made applications on 6.3.2008 and 3.3.2008 to the local authorities for the relief of levying tax to the allotted portion. In the Will, the Testator has also declared that the common space in the Schedule property, viz. staircase, well, trees etc. shall be owned and possessed and enjoyed by the allottees in equal 4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 shares. The 2nd Defendant cannot claim that the Plaintiff has no right to claim ownership of the land. The additional written statement is bereft of particulars. Hence, the suit is to be decreed as prayed for.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
Issues:-
(1) Whether the Will dated 17.1.1998 propounded by the Plaintiff as the last Will and testamentary dated of the deceased Ramakrishna Achari is genuine and valid?
(2)Whether the deceased Ramakrishnan Achari died intestate as claimed by the Defendants?
(3)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the grant of probate as prayed for in the suit?
Additional Issues:-
(1)Whether the alleged assignment of suit land said to be made by Collector in favour of the 2nd Defendant is genuine and proper?
(2)Whether the 2nd Defendant is the owner of the land in pursuance of the assignment of land issued under GO.No.498 of 2008?
(3)Whether the Testator purchased enjoyment right of the land and building with thatched roof by sale deed dated 7.4.1973 in Document No.1097 of 1973 is not true?
(4)To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled?
7. On the side of the Plaintiff, Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked and PW.1 and PW.2 were examined. On the side of the Defendants, Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were marked and DW.1 was examined.
8. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.
9. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that Ramakrishna Achari is the absolute owner of the house and ground premises at No.19, 5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 Bharatheeswaran Colony, 2nd Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24, comprised in TS.No.34, Puliyur Village, measuring 1740 sq.ft. and the same was purchased by him under the sale deed, dated 7.4.1973, vide Document No.1097 of 1973, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kodambakkam. The said Ramakrishna Achari died on 24.12.2001 at the above said premises, leaving his wife, one daughter and two sons, as his legal heirs. The deceased executed a Will on 7.1.1998 and the same was registered as Document No.4 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kodambakkam. The said last Will was executed by the deceased while in a sound and disposing state of mind in the presence of the two witnesses. The Plaintiff is named as the executor of the Will. The Plaintiff has proved the Will and hence, the suit is to be allowed.
10.The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has relied on the following decisions:-
i. 2022 1 SCC 115 (V.Prabhakara Vs. Basavaraj K.), wherein it was held as under:-
“15. Section 17 defines “an admission” which would include a statement both oral and documentary. When such an admission is clear and unequivocal, there is no need to prove it while taking judicial notice. Under Section 58, a fact admitted need not be proved unless the court warrants it. Thus, in a case where a party admits the execution of the document in the nature of a will, which is otherwise proved in accordance with Section 63 and Section 68 of the Succession Act and Evidence Act, respectively, it becomes a relevant fact duly proved, in the absence of any discretion by the court. The exercise of discretion is a judicial one and therefore, there must be a basis in asking a party to prove it otherwise.” ii. 2005 1 SCC 280 (Meenakshiammal Vs. Chandrasekaran), wherein it was held as under:-6/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 “16. We do not find any merit in this civil appeal. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of the signature of the testator, as required by law, is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however, there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before it accepts the will as genuine. Even where the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The suspicious circumstances may be regarding the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the disposition made in the will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or there might be other indications in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case, the court would normally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator.
19. In the case of Chinmoyee Saha v. Debendra Lal Saha [AIR 1985 Cal 349] it has been held that if the propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will, which confers a substantial benefit on him, the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. Once the propounder proves that the will was signed by the testator, that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the disposition and put his signature out of his own free will, and that he signed it in presence of the witnesses who attested it in his presence, the onus, which rests on the propounder, is discharged and when allegation of undue influence, fraud or coercion is made by the caveator, the onus is on the caveator to prove the same.
20. In the case of Ryali Kameswara Rao v. Bendapudi Suryaprakasarao [AIR 1962 AP 178] the Court while discussing the provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925, has held that the suspicion alleged must be one inherent in the transaction itself and not the doubt that may arise from conflict of testimony which becomes apparent on an investigation of the transaction. That 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 suspicious circumstances cannot be defined precisely. They cannot be enumerated exhaustively. They must depend upon the facts of each case. When a question arises as to whether a will is genuine or forged, normally the fact that nothing can be said against the reasonable nature of its provisions will be a strong and material element in favour of the probabilities of the will. Whether a will has been executed by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind is purely a question of fact, which will have to be decided in each case on the circumstances disclosed and the nature and quality of the evidence adduced. When the will is alleged to have been executed under undue influence, the onus of proving undue influence is upon the person making such allegation and mere presence of motive and opportunity are not enough.“ iii. In AIR 1991 Mad 214 (S.Krishnaswami Vs. E.Ramiah), it was held as under:-
“17. In a proceeding, or in other words, in an application filed for grant of probate or letters of administration, no right is asserted or claimed by the applicant. The applicant only seeks recognition of the court to perform a duty. Probate or letters of administration issued by a competent court is conclusive proof of the legal character throughout the world. An assessment of the relevant provisions of the Succession Act, 1925 does not convey a meaning that by the proceedings filed for grant of probate or letters of administration, no rights of the applicant are settled or secured in the legal sense. The author of the testament has cast the duty with regard to the administration of his estate, and the applicant for probate or letters of administration only seeks the permission of the court to perform that duty. There is only a seeking of recognition from the court to perform the duty. That duty is only moral and it is not legal. There is no law which compels the applicant to file the proceedings for probate or letters of administration. With a view to discharge the moral duty, the applicant seeks recognition from the court to perform the duty. It will be legitimate to conclude that the proceedings filed for grant of probate or letters of administration is not an action in law. Hence, it is very difficult to and it will not be in order to construe the proceedings for grant of probate or letters of administration as applications 8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 coming within the meaning of an “application” under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
iv. AIR 2009 SC 3247 (Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma), wherein it was held as under:-
“9. Similarly reference was made to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v. Sajni Prem Lalwani [AIR 1983 Bom 268] . Para 16 reads as follows:-
16. Rejecting Mr Dalpatrai's contention, I summarise my conclusions thus—
(a) under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly prescribed within which an application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate must be made;
(b) the assumption that under Article 137 the right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the deceased, is unwarranted;
(c) such an application is for the court's permission to perform a legal duty created by a will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed;
(d) the right to apply would accrue when it becomes necessary to apply which may not necessarily be within 3 years from the date of the deceased's death;
(e) delay beyond 3 years after the deceased's death would arouse suspicion and greater the delay, greater would be the suspicion;
(f) such delay must be explained, but cannot be equated with the absolute bar of limitation; and 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003
(g) once execution and attestation are proved, suspicion of delay no longer operates.”
11.The learned counsel for the Defendants would submit that Ramakrishna Achari died intestate on 24.12.2001. The Plaintiff has no right to claim any right as per the Hindu Succession Act and he is only the younger brother of the deceased. The Plaintiff is Class II heir as per the said Act and he is not entitled to claim any share from the estate of the deceased. The deceased never executed any Will on 7.1.1998. The Plaintiff has invented these facts with an ulterior motive to grab and claim a share in the house property of the deceased. The deceased was suffering from high diabetics and hyper tension and he was not keeping in good health. The Plaintiff used to instigate the deceased and also provide alcohol drinks and the deceased under the influence of alcohol permitted the Plaintiff to live in a portion of the said property at free of rent till the deceased was alive. However, when the deceased died on 24.12.2001 the Plaintiff and his family members refused to attend the death ceremonies and rights. After the demise of the deceased, the Plaintiff used to pick up quarrel, directing them to vacate the said house property and also claiming that the Plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the said property. The Defendants issued a legal notice dated 10.1.2003, calling upon the Plaintiff to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the portion under his occupation. The Plaintiff received the said notice and sent a reply, stating for the first time about the existence of the Will dated 7.1.1998. These Defendants are only paying the house, property and water taxes and also electricity bills. Further, in 2008, the land described in the Will 10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 was allotted to this Defendant and patta was given by the Collector, on 28.3.2008. Hence, the land in question was not owned by the Testator. Further, the sale deed in the name of Ramakrishna Achari reveals that he purchased only the enjoyment rights of the land alone. This Defendant is the owner of the land and the Plaintiff has no right to claim ownership of land. The Will was executed by Ramakrishna Achari under compulsion and coercion. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the suit.
12.The learned counsel for the Defendants has relied on the following decisions:-
i. 2008 4 MLJ 1199 (P.Mani Vs. P.Viswanathan), wherein it was held as under:-
“It is quite clear that the Appellant/ Plaintiff has certainly withheld the production or exhibition of original Will for the reason that if produced the same will go against him. If original Will had been exhibited in Court then there would have been an occasion for proving the signature of Alamelu by seeking the opinion of a handwriting expert as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but that is not the case before the Court and that the Appellant/ Plaintiff lost the same in the normal course, then suspicion looms large very much in the case and certainly this is a circumstance which goes against the Appellant/ Plaintiff considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in Court's considered opinion.” ii. 2020 2 MLJ 224 (K.Chellappan Vs. Ms.Pancharani), wherein it was held as under:-
“20. Considering these principles, this Court has to apply the facts and circumstances placed and established before the Trial Court. The primary facts are that till such time the Will was filed before the Trial Court after institution of the suit, the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendant were unaware of the facts. The said factum was not disputed by the Defendant before the Trial Court. They were taken by surprise when the Will was introduced by the Defendant to the other heirs of the deceased father. The circumstances are able to be ascertained with reference to the manner in which the facts were 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 placed before the Trial Court and the pleadings were made in this regard. Careful perusal of the pleadings as well as the documents placed before this Court, this Court is able to ascertain that at the time of execution of the Will by the father, undoubtedly the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendant were not aware about the execution of any such Will.
23. Admittedly, the Defendant had not informed about the Will to the other legal heirs at the time of its execution. Peculiarly, even at the time of death of their father and after completion of funeral functions also, the Defendant had not informed about the Will to the other legal heirs. However, the Defendant informed the same at the later point of time, more specifically, after the institution of the civil suit by the Plaintiffs. All these circumstances leading to the facts reveals that there is a suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the said Will, from and out of which the Defendant is benefited.
24. There was no strained relationship between the children and the deceased father. There was no other compelling circumstances to hide the fact regarding the execution of the Will. Under those circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that the suspicious circumstances raised by the Plaintiff in the suit is the to be trusted upon. Beyond the execution of the Will, it is not established before the Trial Court that the contents of the Will was properly explained to the Executor at the time of execution and further, the Executor was fully aware of the contents of the Will and it was his wish. In the absence of establishing the same, these factors, the suspicious circumstances raised is to be relied upon.”
13.This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record. Issue Nos.1 and 2:-
14.PW.1 has deposed that the deceased Testator Ramakrishna Achari ordinarily resided at 19, Bharatheeswaran Colony, 2nd Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24 and he is the absolute owner of the house and ground premises comprised in TS.No.34, Puliyur Village, measuring about 1740 sq.ft. and the same was purchased by the deceased Testator under the registered sale deed, bearing Document No.1097 of 1973, dated 7.4.1973 on the file of the 12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 Sub Registrar, Kodambakkam, Chennai. The said Ramakrishna Achari died on 24.12.2001 in above said premises. The Defendants issued a legal notice dated 10.1.2003, calling upon the Plaintiff to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the portion under his occupation and also claiming damages at the rate of Rs.250/- per day from 24.12.2001. Then the Plaintiff sent a reply notice through his counsel on 13.1.2003 informing that Ramakrishna Achari had bequeathed a portion of the property to the Petitioner pursuant to the Will executed on 7.1.1998 registered as Document No.4 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.
15.DW.1 has deposed that the Plaintiff is the brother of the deceased Ramakrishna Achari. The Testator provided one room in the I Floor and the said provision was made under compulsion by Maradappan and the said Will was executed under coercion and compulsion by Maradappan. The Plaintiff accommodated Ramakrishna Achari and forced him to write the Will. The land measuring 1740 sq.ft. did not belong to the Testator and he has not purchased the land and he purchased only the superstructure and her father had no right to write the Will claiming absolute ownership of the land. He has further deposed that in 2008, the land described in the Will was allotted to her by the Government and the Government has given patta by the proceedings of the Collector, dated 28.3.2008. The land belonged to the Government and it has been assigned to her. She only paid all the taxes for the said property. The Testator died on 24.12.2001. The Will dated 7.1.1998 was produced only during the evidence of PW.1. At the time of 13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 cross examination, the sale deed obtained by the Testator was produced and it reveals that only enjoyment right of the land alone was given. The Testator had no right over the land. The Plaintiff prevented her family to occupy the room allotted to him and thereafter only he has shown the Will, which we have objected. Later, we issued a legal notice to Maradappan to quit from the place and his Advocate also sent a reply dated 13.1.2003. She has further deposed that her father had no right to give away the property and allot one room in the I Floor to the Plaintiff. As a legal heir of Ramakrishna Achari and in view of the patta issued in her favour, the alleged Will dated 7.1.1998 executed by her father Ramakrishna Achari under coercion and undue influence is not binding on the Defendants.
16.PW.2 has deposed that on 7.1.1998, he was present together with Narasimhan at the house of Krishna Achari and Krishna Achari subscribed his name at the foot of the testamentary papers in English language and then, he and Narasimhan subscribed their names and signatures at the foot of the testamentary papers. In his cross, he has deposed that Krishna Achari called him to attest the Will. At that time, he had an occasion to read the Will. Narasimhan who was also living adjacent to the house of Krishna Achari also came to attest the Will. He went to the Sub Registrar Office and signed in the Will.
17.The 2nd Defendant obtained patta only in the year 2008. At the same time, in her written statement admitted that the property was purchased by her father. The 2nd Defendant has deposed that it is correct to state that shares given in 14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 the Will are correct and the share given to Maradappan in the Will is not correct. She deposed that Ex.P1 is the Will executed by her father and it bears the signature of her father. Further, she admitted that there is a recital in the Will that her brother Maradappan at his own cost and expenses built up a superstructure over the open terrace, II floor and he is in occupation.
18.She deposed that in paragraph 6 of the written statement, it is stated that her father was suffering from high diabetics and hyper tension and he was also suffering from asthma, cough and giddiness. But, she has not filed any medical document to prove that her father was suffering from the above said diseases. But, her father was not admitted in the Hospital.
19.From the above answer, she miserably failed to prove her contentions that her father was not in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of executing the Will. Further, she argued that the Will was executed due to coercion, force and undue influence. To prove this contention, she has not filed any document.
20.A Will can be executed in favour of any person. In this case, the Will is a registered one. PW.1 was examined and also he examined PW.2 attestor and he deposed that Krishna Achari only signed in the Will and he also singed in the Will in the Sub Registrar Office. PW.1 has proved his case by oral and documentary evidence. At the same time, the contentions raised by the Defendants are not proved by the oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the Will, dated 17.01.1998 is true and genuine. Hence, the issue no.1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and the Issue No.2 is decided 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 against the Defendants.
21. Issue No.3 and Additional Issue No.4:- The Plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for.
22. Additional Issue Nos.1, 2 and 3:- This Court comes to the conclusion that the Will dated, 7.1.1998 is genuine and valid. Therefore, the 2 nd Defendant has to seek her remedy before appropriate forum. Accordingly, these issues are answered.
23.In fine, this Testamentary Original Suit is decreed as prayed for. The Probate shall be issued in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the impugned Will. No costs.
27.07.2022 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm
1. List of Witnesses examined on the side of the Plaintiff:-
1. PW.1 – Maradappan
2. PW.2 - P.Venugopal
2. List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Plaintiff:-
1. Ex.P1 is the registered Will dated 7.1.1998
2. Ex.P2 is the death certificate of Ramakrishna Achari
3. Ex.P3 is the notice sent to the Plaintiff
4. Ex.P4 is the reply notice dated 13.01.2003 sent by the Plaintiff
5. Ex.P5 is the photocopy of the sale deed dated 7.4.1973
6. Ex.P6 is the approved plan 7.2.1981
3. List of Witnesses examined on the side of the Defendants:-
1. DW.1 – S.Pushpam
4. List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Defendant:- 16/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003
1. Ex.D1 is the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 28.03.2008
2. Ex.D2 is the property tax demand
3. Ex.D3 is the water charges card in the name of the 2nd Defendant 27.07.2022 17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TOS.No.33 of 2003 A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Srcm Pre-Delivery Judgement in TOS.No.33 of 2003 27.07.2022 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis