The Second Appeal challenging a decree dismissing a suit for possession and declaration was allowed to fail. The court held no substantial question of law arose as the appellant failed to produce the alleged unregistered Will, and the claim was time-barred.
Second Appeal dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 02.11.2016 Coram The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Second Appeal No.320 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.5930 of 2016
Annamalai .... Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.197 of 2008 dated 11.12.2014 on the file of the Additional District and Session Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur made in O.S.No.4 of 2002 dated 29.03.2004.
For Appellant : Ms.V.J.Latha For Respondents : Mr.P.Valliappan for R2 For R1 & R3 : NA J U D G M E N T
The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff's father by name P.Rathinam and one Duraisamy are brothers. They owned and enjoyed a property jointly and divided the same equally later. Accordingly, both of them have got their half share in the said property. The said Duraisamy's wife is the first defendant and the daughters are the second and third defendants. According to the plaintiff, after dividing the property, the said Duraisamy executed a Will on 04.04.1973 in favour of his brother namely P.Rathinam who is the father of the plaintiff and that the said Duraisamy died in the year 1983. Therefore, it is contended by the plaintiff that after the death of the said Duraisamy, the Will came into existence and consequently, the plaintiff, after the death of his father is entitled to the property covered in the said Will which is the subject matter of the present suit. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and disputed the Will said to have been executed by Duraisamy. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence let in by them, rejected the claim of
the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Challenging such concurrent finding, the present Second Appeal is filed before this Court.
-s/dAssistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
+1 cc ot Ms.V.J.Latha Advocate sr 62062
Second Appeal No.320 of 2016
aa23/12/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law exists to warrant interference with concurrent findings against the plaintiffs claim to title based on an unregistered unproduced Will.
Whether the plaintiffs claim to title based on a Will which was not produced before the Court can be accepted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Annamalai
Palaniammal
Anjalaiammal
Sivagamam
K. Ravichandrababu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
