Dismissed

M.Lakshmi v. S.Ramanthan

Madras HC7 Oct 2020CRP/1004/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a Trial Court order that refused to accept a prayer to declare certain Will documents inadmissible unless proved under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, upholding the lower court's dismissal of an abuse of process application.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition and connected miscellaneous petition are dismissed with no costs.

M.Lakshmi Vs S.Ramanthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶4

M.Lakshmi ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.S.Ramanathan
2.S.Ramakrishnan
3.S.Ranganayagi
4.Uma Maheswari
5.Minor. R.Karthik Vignesh ..Respondents

¶5

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.11.2017 made in I.A.No.482 of 2017 in O.S.No.451 of 2013 on the file of the IV – Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

¶6

For Petitioner: Mr.C.R.Prasanan For Respondents: Mr.R.Venkatachalapathy for R2 to R5 O R D E R

¶7

A novel application was filed before the Trial Court with a peculiar prayer which reads as follows:-

¶8

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that alleged documents of Wills and cancellation are inadmissible except by following Section 68 of Evidence act and pass orders in the interest of justice.”

¶9

I am unable to resist, observing that this application is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. It is a common knowledge that a document which requires to be attested under law has to be proved in the manner known to law under Section 68 or 69 or 71 of the Evidence Act. I am unable to comprehend

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

the object sought to be achieved by making such a prayer. The provisions of the Evidence Act are very clear that documents which require attestation will have to be proved by examining one attesting witness atleast. It appears from the other pleadings that the attempt of the learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff before the Trial Court is to prevent marking of the Will by the propounder.

¶12

The law relating to marking of Wills has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2016 6 MLJ 371 wherein, the Division Bench has categorically held that marking is only an administrative act and it does not constitute proof of the document. Even if the Will marked by the propounder or the beneficiary unless the attesting witness is examined or the requirements of Section 68 or 69 or 71 of the Evidence Act as the case may be are complied with, the Court cannot rely upon the Will.

¶13

Therefore, I do not see any justification to interfere with the order of the Trial Court which had fortunately dismissed the application. This civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶14

s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar kkn To: The IV – Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

¶15

+1 CC to Mr.C.R.Prasanan, Advocate sr 33214.

¶16

C.R.P.No. 1004 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 5362 of 2018

¶17

JP(CO) SP(07/12/2020)

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Lakshmi v. S.Ramanthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Lakshmi v. S.Ramanthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Julimetillda Vs Puthiyaraja

Mahadeva Mudaliar Vs Bavacharya Satriya Seva

E.Marimuthu Vs Indirani

Aamaravathy Vs Abbas Sandhu Mohammed

Murugesan Vs P. Chakravarthi

Karunakaran(Died) Vs N.R.Rajamani