Allowed

Sumathi v. Rajammal(died)

Madras HC5 Jul 2021CRP/2315/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, setting aside a lower court order that dismissed a petition to reopen a partition suit. The court allowed reopening to examine attestors' children to verify signatures, deeming it non-prejudicial.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.03.2017 dismissing the petition to reopen the suit was set aside; petitioners directed to summon witnesses; suit to be disposed within two months.

Sumathi Vs Rajammal(died) — Partition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(P.D).No.2315 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.07.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) No.2315 of 2018

¶7

and
CMP No.14407 of 2018
1. Sumathi
2. Deepa
3. Arthi
4. Minor Preethi
Rep by mother and Natural Guardian Deepa ... Petitioners
Vs
1. Rajammal (died)
2. Gandhi
(2 nd Respondent is brought on record
as LR of the deceased 1 st respondent
vide Court order dated 05.07.2021
made in CMP No.9653 of 2021 in
CRP (PD) No.2315 of 2018) ... Respondent
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
20.03.2017 made in I.A.No.186 of 2017 in O.S.No.46 of 2015 on the file
of the Sub Court, Attur.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran For R1 : Died (Steps taken) For R2 : Mr.R.Prabakar

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and

¶11

decreetal order dated 20.03.2017 made in I.A.No.186 of 2017 in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

1/4

¶13

C.R.P.(P.D).No.2315 of 2018

¶14

O.S.No.46 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Attur, thereby dismissing

¶15

the petition to re-open the suit.

¶16

The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the

¶17

plaintiff. The respondent filed a suit for partition. After examining the both sides evidences, when the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioners filed a petition to re-open the suit for the reason that they want to examine the children of the attestors, since the registered sale deed executed in favour of him on 10.16.1974, which was marked as Ex.B7 with objections. Therefore, they are bound duty to prove the will by examining the witnesses of the attestors, since the attestors died only to prove the signatures of the attestors through their children and as such

¶18

they filed a petition to re-open the suit. The Court below dismissed the petition for the reason that it was filed belatedly and also no purpose would be served the petitioners examined the children of the attestors

¶19

and he would not fail to prove the Will.

¶20

On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the said

¶21

petition revealed that only at this juncture, the petitioners traced the legal representatives of the attestors of the Will, which was marked as Ex.B7

¶22

and only to prove the attestors signatures in the Will, they want to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶23

2/4

¶24

C.R.P.(P.D).No.2315 of 2018

¶25

examine the children of the attestors. Therefore, it would not change the nature of the suit and would not cause any prejudice to the respondents.

¶26

In view of the above, the order dated 20.03.2017 made in

¶27

I.A.No.186 of 2017 in O.S.No.46 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court,

¶28

Attur, is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. It is made clear that the petitioners shall take immediate steps to summon the witnesses and if the petitioners failed to examine the proposed witnesses on the date fixed by the Court below, the Court below is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 05.07.2021 2/2 lpp Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No To

¶29

The Subordinate Judge, Attur.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶31

3/4

¶32

C.R.P.(P.D).No.2315 of 2018

¶33

lpp

¶34

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶35

C.R.P.(PD) No.2315 of 2018
and CMP No.14407 of 2018
05.07.2021

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶37

4/4

Sumathi v. Rajammal(died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumathi v. Rajammal(died)

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

Krishnasamy Gounder Vs C.Kuppusamy

D.Nanda Kumar Vs T.Usha Rani

M.Nithya,W/O P.Madheswaran Vs P.Madheswaran

Manimegalai Vs Tamizhazhagan

Zameel Ahmed Vs Jayashree Narayanan

C.V. Manigandan Vs Mr. C.V. Jayabalan