Partly allowed

Mrs.Swarna Krishnaswamy and 4 others v. Estate of K.Bhavadharini and 3 others

Madras HC8 Apr 2021A/956/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a property suit regarding a settlement deed and locker contents, courts Allowed an amendment to the plaint schedule but Dismissed an application for interim delivery of gold articles pending the trial in the main suit.

What did the court decide?

Allowed amendment of plaint schedule; dismissed interim direction to hand over articles; directed continuation of trial on strict adjournment limits.

Mrs.Swarna Krishnaswamy and 4 others Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.Nos.956 and 957 of 2021

¶2

in C.S.No.435 of 2018

¶3

A.Nos.956 and 957 of 2021 in

¶4

C.S.No.435 of 2018

¶5

N.SESHASAYEE, J.,

¶6

The facts of the case is that : The 1^st plaintiff was married to a certain

¶7

Krishnaswamy. Some time in 2006, Krishnaswamy is stated to have executed a settlement deed. He created a life estate in favour of his wife,

¶8

the 1^st plaintiff, and the residuary estate was given to the 2^nd defendant and his mother. While so, Krishnasamy died on 19.11.2009. Subsequently, mother of the 2^nd defendant died on March 2017. Thereafter, the present suit is laid by Krishnasamy's wife (maternal grand mother of the 2^nd defendant), challenging the said Settlement Deed executed by Krishnaswamy.

¶9

The defence was that the 2^nd defendant had chosen to marry a girl of

¶10

his choice and this was not acceptable to his maternal grand mother. The trial of the case commenced and the 1^st plaintiff, the maternal grand mother of the 2^nd defendant has been examined. The case is posted to further evidence on the side of the 1^st plaintiff. At this stage, the 1^st plaintiff has taken out these two applications:

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in 1/4

¶12

A.Nos.956 and 957 of 2021

¶13

in C.S.No.435 of 2018

¶14

(a) A.No.956 of 2021 is filed to amend the schedule – B

¶15

of the plaint to incorporate certain more items in the list

¶16

which was jointly held by the 1^st plaintiff and the 2^nd defendant and the list of jewelleries which are already

¶17

inventoried.

¶18

(b) A.No.957 of 2021 is filed for interim direction to the respondent / 2^nd defendant to hand over Gold and Silver articles morefully described in the schedule appended to the Judges Summons to the plaintiffs.

¶19

Mr.H.Karthik Seshadri, learned counsel for the 2^nd defendant would

¶20

submit that insofar as A.No.956 of 2021 is concerned, it is an admitted

¶21

fact that the locker stood in the name of the 1^st plaintiff and the 2^nd defendant, and that the 1^st plaintiff had handed over the keys to the 2^nd defendant to operate it independently. This apart, he also stated that even the 1^st plaintiff strongly conceded that some of the articles in the locker belonged to her deceased daughter. He, however, added that the 2^nd defendant disputed the title of the 1^st plaintiff to operate the locker.

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in 2/4

¶23

A.Nos.956 and 957 of 2021 in C.S.No.435 of 2018

¶24

A.No.957 of 2021 is filed for an interim direction to hand over those articles in the locker to the plaintiff and the learned counsel submitted that this cannot be handed over due to the pendency of the suit, more so,

¶25

the 2 nd defendant disputes title of the 1 st plaintiff.

¶26

Heard both sides.

¶27

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would now respond and states that if the articles are not handed over, and the Bank may be directed atleast not to allow the 2^nd defendant to operate the locker.

¶28

After careful consideration of both the applications, this Court considers it is only appropriate to allow A.No.956 of 2021. To operate the contents of the said locker, the title has to be decided, and it can be decided in the suit. So far as A.No.957 of 2021 is concerned, inasmuch

¶29

as the entire articles are inventoried, there is no need to hand over the

¶30

N.SESHASAYEE, J.,

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4

¶32

A.Nos.956 and 957 of 2021 in C.S.No.435 of 2018

¶33

ssn
articles to the other side. Hence, this Court felt there is no need to pass
any direction in A.No.957 of 2021 and accordingly, dismissed.
8. A.No.956 of 2021 is allowed. Necessary amendment to be carried out
and the matter will be referred back to learned Master for continuation of
trial on 26.04.2021 and the learned Master is directed not to extend
generous adjournment and accommodation for the parties and to proceed
again with the trial of the matter, but subject to Covid protocol of the
High Court and conduct of Courts.
9. Post the matter on 14.06.2021.
08.04.2021
ssn
A.Nos.956 and 957 of 2021
in
C.S.No.435 of 2018

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4

Mrs.Swarna Krishnaswamy and 4 others v. Estate of K.Bhavadharini and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Swarna Krishnaswamy and 4 others v. Estate of K.Bhavadharini 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

R.Sathyavathi Vs The District Collector

Duraisami Vs The District Collector

Mrs.Shanti Devi Sharma @ Shanthi Sharma, Vs The Sub Registrar

Mr.a.Abdul Rahim Vs Mrs.Maimuna and 7 others

Geetha Sarangarajan Vs K.R.Ashok

Mr.Mohammed Dawood and 4 others Vs Mrs.Noorul Ayisha and another