Thangavel v. P.Lakshmi
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madras High Court quashed an order directing the defendant to lead evidence first regarding a Will. The Court held that the plaintiff bears the burden to establish her case, so shifting this burden to the defendant was erroneous. The revision was allowed.
What did the court decide?
The order dated 25.10.2017 in I.A.No.404 of 2016 was set aside; the Civil Revision Petition was allowed.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.02.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP(PD)No. 3333 of 2017
and
CMP No.15520 of 2017
Thangavel .. Petitioner
Vs
P.Lakshmi .. Respondent
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal Order dated 25.10.2017 made in I.A.No.404 of 2016 in O.S.No.16 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman For Respondent : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
O R D E R
This revision arises against the fair and decreetal Order dated 25.10.2017 made in I.A.No.404 of 2016 in O.S.No.16 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Salem.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the burden of proof to prove the genuineness of the Will lies with the defendant or the plaintiff who is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
Whether an interim order allowing the defendant to commence evidence first regarding the Will can be maintained under Order 18 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC.
Whether a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 can quash an order shifting the burden of proof on matters of title and succession.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Thangavel
- respondent
P.Lakshmi
Coram
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court