K.Ramalingam vs Anjalai .. Caveator/Defendant
In Smt. Guro v. Atma Singh & Ors. [1992 (2) SCR 30], which has been referred to in Naval Kishore case (cited supra), it has been held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (2.00 seconds)K.Ramalingam vs Anjalai .. Caveator/Defendant
In Smt. Guro v. Atma Singh & Ors. [1992 (2) SCR 30], which has been referred to in Naval Kishore case (cited supra), it has been held as follows:
Narayanan Servai vs Seenuammal on 3 September, 2012
20. The alleged proof made by the plaintiff was said to have been disproved by the defendant by showing that the signature found in Ex.A1 was a forged one through the examination of those signatures by the hand writing expert and by producing the said report with photographs taken by her and also by examining the hand writing expert. The hand writing expert had categorically come to a conclusion that the signature put in the admitted documents given to her for comparing the signature found in Ex.A1 promissory note and had come to the conclusion that the signature in Ex.A1 promissory note was not put by the defendant. Questioning the proprietary of the expert's opinion, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would rely upon certain judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court. The Division Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (1) CTC 97 (J. Naval Kishore vs D. Swarna Bhadran) as lay down certain principles which would run as follows:-
M/S.Arunoday Developers vs M/S.Gemini Arts Private Ltd on 7 August, 2009
22. Under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, secondary evidence could be looked into only when the non production of original is satisfactorily explained. Based on that, a Division Bench of this Court in J.Naval Kishore v. D.Swarna Bhadran, 2008 (1) CTC 97, of course in the context of a family arrangement in respect of which a xerox copy was sought to be produced, held as under:
M. Vairamudi vs R. Sundararajan on 25 April, 2022
19. The case in J. Naval Kishore vs. D. Swarna Bhadran and
others (cited supra) is that the atttestors to the Will who have been
examined as the witnesses failed to prove the execution of the Will and
therefore, it was held that the propounder has not proved the Will in
accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of
Indian Succession Act. Therefore, the above ruling may not apply to the
facts of the present case.
Mrs. Muthulakshmi vs K.Rani on 20 November, 2023
10.5. Even on the factual matrix, it is seen that the testator had initially
executed a registered Will dated 11.07.2002 which is admitted by both the
parties. When the testator has consciously taken steps to register the Will
executed by him at the first instance, the reason why he had chosen not to
register the Will dated 27.03.2004 allegedly executed by him, is a factor to be
19/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos.34 & 177 of 2022
considered based on the evidence to be adduced by the parties during trial. A
Division Bench of this Court in J. Naval Kishore v. D. Swarna Bhadran
[(2008) 1 CTC 97] has reckoned that such a conduct amounts to a suspicious
circumstance and the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted
hereunder for better appreciation:
Mrs. Muthulakshmi vs K.Rani on 20 November, 2023
10.5. Even on the factual matrix, it is seen that the testator had initially
executed a registered Will dated 11.07.2002 which is admitted by both the
parties. When the testator has consciously taken steps to register the Will
executed by him at the first instance, the reason why he had chosen not to
register the Will dated 27.03.2004 allegedly executed by him, is a factor to be
19/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos.34 & 177 of 2022
considered based on the evidence to be adduced by the parties during trial. A
Division Bench of this Court in J. Naval Kishore v. D. Swarna Bhadran
[(2008) 1 CTC 97] has reckoned that such a conduct amounts to a suspicious
circumstance and the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted
hereunder for better appreciation:
V.Pandi vs M.Thyagarajan on 18 July, 2012
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the orders passed by the trial Court are in accordance with law and no interference is called for with those orders. He would cite a decision of this Court reported in 2007 (5) MLJ 1417 in the case of J.Naval Kishore v. D.Swara Bhadran and Others, wherein it has been held as under :
Elayammal vs N.Padmavathy on 24 September, 2012
9. 2009(5) CTC 380 (SC) [Gajara Vishnu Gosavi vs. Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble and others]
10.2007(2) SCC 225 [Apoline D'Souza vs. John D'Souza]
11.2007(2) CTC 172 (SC) [Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi vs. Mridula Jyoti Rao and others]
12.2008(1) CTC 97[D.B.of Madras High Court] {J.Naval Kishore vs. D.Swarna Bhadran]
13.2008(2) CTC 135 [Madurai Bench of Madras High Court] {Sarojini and another vs. Mohandoss and others]
14.2005(1) CTC 334 [D.B.of Madras High Court] {L.H.Vidyapoornan vs. L.H.Premavathy and others]
15.2010(7) SCC 717 [Laxman Tatyaba Kankate and another vs. Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak]
2.1933 vs Mrs.Chitkala Govindaswamy on 29 September, 2015
22. If the entire evidence is looked into, the respondent did not offer any acceptable explanation for the exclusion of the appellant from inheriting the property. ....
(5) 2008 (1) CTC 97 (J.Naval Kishore vs. D.Swarna Bhadran)
71. Admittedly Javantharaj was well conversant with Court proceedings. There is no dispute that he used to consult eminent Lawyers like Mr.P.Gopalsami Iyengar and Mr. M. Srinivasan [as His Lordship then was] and used to get legal advice from the said eminent lawyers. It may be noted that documents executed by Javantharaj were also drafted only by Advocates. For instance, Ex. P-4 Supplemental Trust Deed dated 31.07.1990 was drafted by advocate Mr. Radha Krishnan. Ex. P-5 Deed of Supplemental Trust [dated 28.05.1990] was drafted by Advocate Mr. P.K.Sivasubramaniam. Indisputedly, Javantharaj had legal counselling for drafting and in managing his affairs. While so, while he had bequeathed his properties of huge value, the question arises, would he have just left behind an unregistered Will ? Absolutely there is no evidence as to who drafted Ex.P-2 Will and who typed it. Drafting of the Will is shrouded with suspicion, which is not at all dispelled.