Kanagambaram Ammal vs Kakammal, Govindasamy, Pachammal, ... on 19 August, 2004
● In a suit where the plaintiff seeks declaration that Ext.P.3 and Ext.P.8
are invalid, she herself has not opted to examine herself, but instead
examined only her son on her behalf. Necessarily, adverse inference
may have to be drawn against the plaintiff. Reliance was placed on
Kanagambaram Ammal v. Kakammal and others [AIR 2005 Mad
142] and P.D.P.Chinadurai v. T.Lakshmanan & others [2020-5-
L.W.264]. Her non-examination is significant in the context of the
fact that she asserts that Ext.D1=Ext.P17 and Ext.D2 =Ext.P18, sale
deeds respectively relating to 'A' and 'B' schedules of properties were
purchased benami by Bapanna Rao, and the burden of establishing
that Rajeswari Bai did not have any resources of her own, is on her,
15/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.233 of 2009
which burden she has not discharged.