Dismissed

Mrs.Hemavathi and 2 others v. L.Harish Kumar and 2 others

Madras HC18 Jun 2021A/284/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application by the plaintiff seeking to implead proposed defendants in a testamentary original suit. The court ruled that impleading parties who did not file a caveat to contest the grant is impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Application to implead R.J.Baskar and Mr.B.Sriram as party Defendants in the testamentary original suit was dismissed. No costs.

Mrs.Hemavathi and 2 others Vs L.Harish Kumar and 2… — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

A.No. 284 of 2021 in T.O.S.No. 25 of 2020 In the matter of the Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925, and In the matter of Last Will and Testament of R.J.Mohan (Deceased) L.HARISH KUMAR S/o.N.Loganathan, Plot No.106, Kumaran Nagar, Chinmaya Nagar, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 092 ..Petitioner/Plaintiff -Vs1. MRS.HEMAVATHI W/o.Sripathi and D/o.T.R.Jayaraman, No.27/11, 3rd Street, Srinivasa Perumal Sannathi, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 014

¶7

K.YASODHA W/o.Kulasekarnan, D/o.T.R.Jayaraman, No.19/1, Kannadasan Salai, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017

¶8

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

¶9

R.J.KRISHNAMOORTHY S/o.T.R.Jayaraman,

¶10

¶11

No.51/20,Pilkington Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023

¶12

..Caveators / R2, R4 and R5 Respondents / Defendants

¶13

A.No.284 of 2021:

¶14

HEMAVATHI W/o.Sripathi and D/o.T.R.Jayaraman, No.27/11, 3rd Street, Srinivasa Perumal Sannathi, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 014

¶15

K.YASODHA W/o.Kulasekarnan, D/o.T.R.Jayaraman, No.27/11, 3rd Street, Srinivasa Perumal Sannathi, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 014

¶16

R.J.KRISHNAMOORTHY S/o.T.R.Jayaraman, No.51/20,Pilkington Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023 .. Applicants/Defendants -Vs-

¶17

L.HARISH KUMAR S/o.N.Loganathan, Plot No.106, Kumaran Nagar, Chinmaya Nagar, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 092 ..Respondent/Plaintiff

¶18

MR.R.J.BASKAR

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S/o.T.R.Jayaraman, 51/20 Pikington Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

MR.SRIRAM S/o.R.J.Baskar 51/20 Pikington Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023. ..Proposed Respondents/Proposed Defendants 4 and 5

¶23

This application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to implead R.J.Baskar who is the brother of the deceased R.J.Mohan, the 2nd Proposed Respondent/2nd Proposed Respondent herein and Mr.B.Sriram, who is one of the beneficiary under the Will dated 16/04/2008. alleged to have been executed by the deceased R.J.Mohan, as party Defendants in the above Testamentary Original Suit No.25 of 2020.

¶24

This application coming on this day before this Court for hearing, the court made the following order:-

¶25

Though proposed parties have been served, they have not chosen to

¶26

enter appearance. The applicant who is the plaintiff had in fact impleaded proposed parties in the original petition viz., O.P.No.569 of 2018, in which

¶27

he had sought for Letters of Administration with a Will annexed, in respect of the Will dated 16.04.2008 said to have been executed by late R.J.Mohan.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

2. The defendants 2, 4 and 5 filed a caveat opposing the grant.

¶31

Therefore, the original petition in O.P.No.569 of 2018 was converted into testamentary original suit and numbered as T.O.S.No.25 of 2020. The other defendants who were served with notice of the original petition did not chose to file a caveate and oppose the grant. Therefore, they were deleted

¶32

from the array of parties in the testamentary original suit.

¶33

3. Now, the plaintiff has come up with this application to implead two of such defendants in the testamentary original suit.

¶34

4. It is the fundamental principle of law that a person who has not

¶35

filed a caveat and opposed the grant cannot be heard in the testamentary original suit. Therefore, impleading of the respondents who have not chosen

¶36

to file a caveat in the original petition to contest the grant is impermissible.

¶37

5. Hence, this application is dismissed . No costs.

¶38

Dated at this the day of 2021

¶39

SU/23.06.2021

¶40

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶41

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶42

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

Mrs.Hemavathi and 2 others v. L.Harish Kumar and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Hemavathi and 2 others v. L.Harish Kumar and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mass INCORPORATED,6885,ELM St. Vs 1.AKSHAY INDUSTRIES,NO.107

M.R.Viswanathan @ Visu Vs Vendhar Movies Private Limited

Mr. B. Vivekananthan Vs Mr B Anandan

The Official Liquidator Vs M/s.T.P.S.Builders Limited

S.Vijaya Kumar and another Vs Uma Surguru

A.Meeran and 2 others Vs N.Pushpa and 3 others