This judgment dismisses a testamentary suit for grant of letters of administration as it proceeded by strength of an original petition converted after a caveat. The plaintiff failed to appear on the date of hearing, resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution.
Testamentary Suit is dismissed for non prosecution due to failure of plaintiff to appear.
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 : 23.04.2018 CORAM
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
T.O.S.No.19 of 2003
in
(O.P.No.409 of 2001)
N.Ranganathan ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. S.Subhashini
2. S.Subramani
3. J.Rajabai ... Defendants
Original Petition No. 409 of 2001 was filed under Sections 232 and 276 of Indian Succession Act, XXXIX of 1925 for the grant of letters of Administration. Against this petition a Caveat was filed on by the
Caveators As per order of this Court, the Original Petition No.409 of 2001 was converted into Testamentary Original Suit No.19 of 2003.
For Plaintiff : No appearance
For defendants : Mr.M.Balasubramanian
2
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
J U D G M E N T
The petition originally filed for the grant of Letters of Administration
has been converted as suit in view of the caveat filed by the defendants
herein.
2. There was no representation for the plaintiff on 19.04.2018.
Therefore, this suit was posted today under the caption 'for dismissal'.
Today, also there is no representation for the plaintiff. Hence, this
Testamentary Suit is dismissed for non prosecution.
23.04.2017
vrc
T.O.S.No.19 of 2003
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the testamentary suit filed for grant of letters of administration should be dismissed due to non-appearance of the plaintiff.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
