The High Court of Madras dismissed an appeal against a composite order permitting the recording of evidence on commission. The court held the appeal was misconceived as the order did not decide the suit or determine share entitlements, which depend on trial findings.
Appeal dismissed; C.M.P.No.803 of 2017 closed; suit to proceed as scheduled.
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 : 19.01.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
O.S.A.No.9 of 2017
PRAYER: Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 9.1.2017 made in Application No.6368 of 2016 in C.S.No.551 of 2003.
For Appellants : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian Senior Counsel for M/s.Harishankar Mani JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard learned counsel for parties.
that the observations therein seek to suggest as if the original plaintiff/ respondent is entitled to share in all the properties as claimed in the plaint, even though the defence of the appellants is that in respect of many properties she would not have a share as those properties have either been settled by an oral partition or by Will of the grandfather of the second and third appellants.
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS VI ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Sub Assistant Registrar Orginal Side, High Court Madras.
2.The Section Officer, Judicial Department, High Court Madras. Copy to The Section Office, Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court,Madras.
O.S.A.No.9 of 2017 RSY(CO) GN(23/01/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the composite order for recording evidence on commission without deciding the suit
Whether the respondent’s status as a Class-I heir justified recording evidence outside his presence
Whether the impugned order was misconceived in permitting evidence recording under Order XXXVI Rule 1
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Malathy Rangarajan
M.Srinath
M.Sricharan
Ambujam T.M.
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
M.Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
