High Court dismissed a review application filed by a third defendant regarding a property partition judgment, holding that the cited ground regarding sufficiency of attestor examination did not satisfy Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC requirements.
Review application dismissed. No costs. Connected CMP also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.7.2015
CORAM
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
Review Application No.156 of 2004
Jayaraman
.. Applicant
Vs.
10.Kanaga
11.Seethalakshmi
.. Respondents
Petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC, to review the judgment dated 09.01.2003 made in A.S.No.250 of 1987 on the file of this Court.
For Applicant : Mr.K.Srinivsan, S.C. For Mr.J.Antony Jesus For Respondent-1 : Mr.P.Prem Kumar
O R D E R
(Made by V.Ramasubramanian,J.)
This is an application seeking review of a common judgment and
decree delivered by a Division Bench way back on 09.01.2003 in A.S.Nos.250 and 783 of 1987.
2
3
insufficient for upholding the validity of the Will. In paragraph 17 of its judgment, this Court found fault with the review applicant for not examining the second attestor. The grievance of the review applicant is that it is not necessary to examine both the attesting witnesses and that once one of them is examined, the same is sufficient.
Index : Yes/No (V.R.S.J.) (T.M.J.) Internet : Yes/No 06.7.2015. kpl
4
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J, and T.MATHIVANAN,J.
kpl
Rev.A.No.156 of 2004.
06.7.2015.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayaraman
Chellammal
Chinnasamy
Seeli Naicker
Ponnuthayammal
Somu
V.Ramasubramanian
T.Mathivanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
