Revision petitioner sought to set aside a lower court order dismissing an application to declare alleged Wills null and void. The court held that late filing without satisfactory explanation barred the application.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order of the court below is confirmed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP(PD).No.1059 of 2018 and CMP.No.5583 of 2018
Anusuya @ Pourany Porquile .. Petitioner Vs 1.Jayabooshanam 2.Selvanandam @ Kanaveni 3.Dhanalakshmi @ Seetha .. Respondents PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 22.02.2018 made in IA.No.2 of 2018 in OS.No.135 of 2011 on the file of the Special Officer-Cum-Additional Sub Court at Puducherry.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal at
the admission stage itself.
2
petitioner has filed a suit in OS.No.135 of 2011 for partition and separate possession against the respondents herein on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. According to the revision petitioner, in the aforesaid suit, the third respondent / third defendant filed written statement on 15.06.2012. In the aforesaid suit, trial was commenced, evidence on both sides were concluded and posted for arguments. At the stage, the revision petitioner / plaintiff filed an application by stating that certain Wills have been marked during the evidence of the defendants. Immediately, the present application was filed for declaration that the alleged Wills relied upon by the respondents are null and void. The court below without considering the said contention of the revision petitioner, has dismissed the said application by holding that evidence of both sides were concluded and issues are not farmed. Against the said order, the revision petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
3
dismissed the said application. If the said application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. Hence, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside.
perused the materials avialable on record.
the revision petitioner, the first submission of the revision petitioner is that the application has been filed after trial has been commenced and evidence of both sides were concluded and posted for arguments, there is no satisfatory explanation in the affidavit for filing the belated application at the stage of arguments. Secondly, the revision petitioner has filed for declaration that the aforesaid Will relied upon by the defendants is null and void.
4
a prayer of declaration of title would have become time barred. The said application cannot be entertained."
contention of the revision petitioner for the aforesaid reasons. Further,
the respondents / defendants have relied upon the Will. It is for the respondents to prove the genuineness of the Will by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence at the time of trial in the suit. Hence,
the order of the court below is confirmed, there is no error or illegality
in the order passed by the court below.
21.03.2018
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
lok
5
To
The Special Officer-Cum-Additional Sub Court, Puducherry.
6
D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,
lok
CRP(PD).No.1059 of 2018
and CMP.No.5583 of 2018
21.03.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application filed for declaring Wills null and void after trial commenced and evidence concluded can be entertained.
Whether the reason for filing the belated application despite no satisfactory explanation justifies setting aside the lower court order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L.C.Hanumanthappa (died) represented by his LR's Vs.H.B.ShivakumarExplained¶27
(2015) 6 CTC 562
Anusuya @ Pourany Porquile
Jayabooshanam
Selvanandam @ Kanaveni
Dhanalakshmi @ Seetha
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
