M.Uma vs Ramu @ Ramalingam (Died) on 25 March, 2025
18.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the
decision reported in 2013 (3) CTC 729 (Palaniammal v. Pappathi). The
said case involved a registered Will and the scribe alone was examined.
17/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
A.S(MD)No.53 of 2015
No suggestion was put to the scribe or the propounder during cross
examination that the attesting witnesses were alive during trial. The
High Court held that the Will was proved. In that case, the suit was filed
in 1999. The suit Will was dated 09.07.1969. In other words, a thirty
year old Will was propounded. The courts below had concurrently held
that the Will had been proved. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section
100 of CPC, this Court declined to interfere. An expression “singularly
singular case” was employed by the learned Judge. Therefore, such a
decision cannot be mechanically applied to the facts of this case. In the
case on hand, the suit Will is of the year 2002. Even according to the
defendant, one of the attesting witnesses was alive during trial. That is
why, witness summon was taken out. We therefore hold that the said
decision is distinguishable on facts.