Allowed

V.Kokila v. v.Seshaya and 4 others

Madras HC10 Oct 2022OP/392/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an Original Petition for Letters of Administration with Will annexed under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, based on evidence including the Will and attesting witness testimony, while directing the petitioner to administer the estate and render annual accounts.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to administer properties and credits; execute bond for Rs. 25,000; render true and correct accounts once in a year.

V.Kokila Vs v.Seshaya and 4 others — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

O.P.No.392 of 2020

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶4

This Original Petition has been filed taking advantage of Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking grant of Letters of Administration with will annexed relating to the registered Will dated 23.10.1992 executed by the maternal grandfather of the petitioner, V.B.Veerasamy Reddiar, who died on 14.02.1993.

¶5

2.In the petition to explain the delay in filing of the petition, it had been stated that the petitioner is an illiterate lady and that she was under an impression that as beneficiary under the Will, she had obtained title and when she applied for mutation of her name in the Chennai Corporation in October 2019, it was informed that she should obtain Letters of Administration. Thereafter, this Original Petition had been filed.

¶6

3.V.B.Veerasamy Reddiar had two sons viz., Dr.Perumal and Dr.Seshaya. Dr. The 1^st respondent, Dr.V.Seshaya had received notice on

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

30.09.2020 and had taken a conscious decision not to appear before this Court. With respect to the other respondents, after services had been completed, counsel had entered appearance.

¶10

4.The petitioner was directed to tender evidence. The petitioner was examined herself as PW-1. The death certificate of Pawanammal and V.B.Veerasamy Reddiar were marked as Exs.P1 and P3. The original Will dated 23.10.1992 was marked as Ex.P2. The copy of the paper publications were marked as Exs.P7 and P8. Thereafter, since both the attesting witnesses were reported dead, S.Ramachandran was examined as PW-2. He identified the Will. He identified the signature of V.B.Veerasamy and also stated that V.B.Veerasamy was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of Ex.P2, Will. He had also filed an affidavit and his affidavit was marked as Ex.P9.

¶11

5.In view of the evidence adduced, I hold there is every reason to grant

¶12

the relief sought in the Original Petition namely, granting Letters of Administration with will annexed.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

6.With the above observations, this Original Petition stands allowed.

¶16

The petitioner is directed to duly administer the properties and credits of the deceased more fully described in the schedule. The petitioner is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the Assistant Registrar (O.S.II) High Court, Madras. The petitioner is further directed to render true and correct accounts once in a year.

¶17

10.10.2022

¶18

smv

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

Smv

O.P.No.392 of 2020

10.10.2022

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

V.Kokila v. v.Seshaya and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Kokila v. v.Seshaya and 4 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

Ram Kumar Bhardwaj Vs the Owners and Parties

J.C.Eswards Vs the Owners and Parties

Amirthavalli Vs Mangalakshmi (Died)

P.Ravi kumar Vs R.Vijayalakshmi and 3 others

Navaneetham Vs Nil

L.Balaji Vs Visalam Ramamurthy and 4 Others