Dismissed

C.Papopathi@Nagamani v. N.Mani@Manickam

Madras HC15 Mar 2018CRP/887/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioner challenged the trial court's dismissal of an application to disprove a will due to lack of a contemporary document for signature comparison. Court found no error in the lower order but allowed filing a fresh application if the document is now available.

What did the court decide?

The application to compare signatures was rejected, but leave was granted to file a fresh application if a contemporary document is procured.

C.Papopathi@Nagamani Vs N.Mani@Manickam — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP(PD).No.887 of 2018 and CMP.No.4856 of 2018 C.Pappathi @ Nagamani .. Petitioner Vs N.Mani @ Manickam .. Respondent PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 13.12.2017 made in IA.No.846 of 2017 in OS.No.126 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ponraj

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶10

According to the revision petitioner, the revision

¶11

petitioner has filed a suit in OS.No.126 of 2010 for partition against the respondent herein. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent / defendant has

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

marked unregistered will executed by petitioner's father in favour of the respondent / defendant. Therefore, the revision petitioner has filed an application IA.No.846 of 2017 to disprove the will in the aforesaid suit. The trial court dismissed the said application on the ground the revision petitioner has not furnished contemporary document to compare the disputed signature and alleged will. Challenging the aforesaid order, the revision petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

¶15

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the said alleged will executed by the respondent / defendant is denied by the petitioner. The petitioner being the plaintiff has filed the said suit for partition. Therefore, if the said application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.

¶16

At this stage of arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the court below has dismissed the said application by observing that contemporary document has not been filed by the revision petitioner. On instruction, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that now contemporary document is

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

available for comparing the disputed signature and requests this Court to grant opportunity to file an appropriate application before the court below.

¶20

On perusal of records, there is no error or illegality in the

¶21

order passed by the court below. Therefore is no warrants to interfere

¶22

with the order passed by the court below. However, if contemporary

¶23

document is available, it is open to the revision petitioner to file an

¶24

application before the court below and if it is satisfied, the court below

¶25

shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶26

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with above

¶27

observations. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is

¶28

closed. No costs.

¶29

15.03.2018

¶30

Speaking/Non-Speaking order

Index :Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

lok

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

¶36

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶37

lok

¶38

To
The Subordinate Court,
Dharapuram.
CRP(PD).No.887 of 2018
and CMP.No.4856 of 2018

¶39

15.03.2018

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.Papopathi@Nagamani v. N.Mani@Manickam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Papopathi@Nagamani v. N.Mani@Manickam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Vs K.Umamaheswari

B. Anitha Kumari Vs S. Ravi, S/O. Subbulu

Sivaraj Vs Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd.

M.Thiyagarajan Vs United Traders

P.Vaiyapuri Vs S.Balachandar

K.M.Karhtikeyalu Vs Sri Venugopalaswamy