Dismissed

S.Rajeswari, C/o.M.Malathy v. S.Venukumar and 3 others

Madras HC12 Oct 2020A/1698/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an application to dismiss a Testamentary Original Suit. Relying on a prior unchallenged judgment in a partition suit that declared a disputed Will null and void, the court held the new Testamentary Original Suit was not maintainable as it sought similar relief in a different form.

What did the court decide?

The Testamentary Original Suit in T.O.S. 22 of 2020 was dismissed. No costs awarded.

S.Rajeswari, C/o.M.Malathy Vs S.Venukumar and 3… — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

A.No.1698 of 2020 and TOS No.22 of 2020

¶2

A.No.1698 of 2020 and

¶3

T.O.S.No.22 of 2020 (O.P.No.972 of 2018)

¶4

N. SATHISHKUMAR, J.

¶5

This application has been filed to dismiss the T.O.S.No. 22

¶6

of 2020 (O.P.No.972/2018).

¶7

Originally, an original petition in O.P.No.972 of 2018

¶8

was filed for grant of letters of Administration and subsequently, it was converted into T.O.S.No.22 of 2020, inview of the caveat filed by the

¶9

applicant herein.

¶10

The applicant herein is the 2nd respondent and the

¶11

respondents herein are the petitioners in TOS No.22 of 2020. The

¶12

present application has been taken out by the applicant/2nd respondent

¶13

on the ground that the subject matter of the Will is also the subject

¶14

matter of the suit in O.S.No.5680 of 2016 on the file of the XVIII

¶15

Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, which was filed seeking for partition by the applicant. It is the contention of the applicant that

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

A.No.1698 of 2020 and TOS No.22 of 2020

¶19

the Trial Court had declared that the Will dated 12.06.1989 is null and

¶20

void and had also granted the relief of partition in favour of the applicant. The further contention is that the above decree and judgement was passed on 02.08.2018, however, the same was not challenged by the respondents/defendants by way of filing appeal and hence, the matter reached finality and the same can not be pressed into

¶21

service in this proceedings for seeking letters of administration.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have

¶23

not disputed the above decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.5680 of 2016 dated 02.08.2018 by the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court. A perusal of the entire counter affidavit shows

¶24

that except the general defence by alleging that the application is not maintainable, no other substance found therein. More over, in the suit in O.S.No.5680 of 2016, a specific issue was framed with regard to the validity of the Will dated 12.06.1989, which is the subject matter of the

¶25

present T.O.S.No.22 of 2020. After elaborate discussion and also considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides,

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

A.No.1698 of 2020 and TOS No.22 of 2020

¶29

the Trial Court has declared that the Will dated 12.06.1989 is null and void and the mother of the parties had no right to execute the Will and that the suit property was purchased by the father of the parties.

¶30

Having regard to the categorical findings recorded by

¶31

the Trial Court that the Will dated 12.06.1989 is null and void and also the fact that the above decree and judgment was not challenged so far,

¶32

this court is of the view that by ignoring the above judgement, the respondents/petitioners cannot seek similar relief in a different form by filing this Testamentary Original Suit. Therefore, the Testamentary Original Suit in T.O.S. 22 of 2020 is not maintainable.

¶33

Accordingly, this application is allowed. Consequently,

¶34

the Testamentary Original Suit in TOS 22 of 2020 is dismissed. No

costs.

12.10.2020

mst

Page 3 of 4

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

A.No.1698 of 2020 and TOS No.22 of 2020

¶41

N. SATHISHKUMAR, J.

¶42

mst

¶43

A.No.1698 of 2020 and
TOS No.22 of 2020

¶44

12.10.2020

¶45

Page 4 of 4

¶46

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.Rajeswari, C/o.M.Malathy v. S.Venukumar and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajeswari, C/o.M.Malathy v. S.Venukumar and 3 others

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

A.James S/o.Late M.S.Arulanandam C/o.Capital Colour Lab Vs Mr.a.Micheal and 2 others

R.Manickavelrajan S/o.M.Radhakrishnan Vs a.Nomalatha W/o.R.Manickavelrajan

P.R.Rajaseharan and 2 Others Vs Manohar Prasad and 4 Others

M.Loganathan Vs No Respondent

N.Haridoss Vs

J.Niranjan Vs No Respondent