Allowed

Mercury Precision Products (P) Ltd. v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC28 Jul 2022WP/1320/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants probate of the Will of deceased P. Krishnan Achari to petitioner Vellai Perumal, the Executor. The court accepted evidence and consent affidavits from respondents to allow the Will to be proved in common form and grant probate effective throughout Tamil Nadu.

What did the court decide?

Probate of the Will of P. Krishnan Achari is granted in common form with effect throughout Tamil Nadu. No costs.

Mercury Precision Products (P) Ltd. Vs The… — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

O.P.No.210 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Original Petition No.210 of 2022

¶7

Vellai Perumal

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus 1.K.Perumal 2.R.Saraswathi @ Petchiammal 3.P.Balakrishnan @ Gopi 4.R.Yogalakshmi @ Kavitha 5.S.Jaya 6.S.Vasanth @ Iyyakutti 7.M.Anandhi @ Anandajyothi ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: The Original Petition filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925 and under Order XXV Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules, praying that the petitioner may be allowed to prove the Will in common form and that probate thereof to have effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu may be granted to him. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajesh

¶11

1/4

¶12

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

¶13

O.P.No.210 of 2022

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Original Petition has been filed seeking probate of the Will of P.Krishnan Achari, who died on 30.09.2006. He had executed a Will dated 12.08.2005. The petitioner is the Executor of the said Will. The respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased P.Krishnan Achari. They had filed their consent affidavits.

¶16

The petitioner was examined as P.W.1. The original Will was

¶17

marked as Ex.P1. The Death Certificate of P.Krishnan Achari was marked as Ex.P2. The Legal Heirship Certificate was marked as Ex.P3. The Death Certificates of the two of the legal heirship were marked as Exs.P5 and P6. The consent affidavits were marked as Exs.P9 –P15.

¶18

To prove the Will, R.Santhanan was examined as P.W.2. He identified Ex.P1, Will. P.W.2 stated that he has signed as second attestor. The first attestor is A.Sunaba. P.W.2 also stated that the Will was executed, at a time, when P.Krishnan Achari was in sound disputing state of mind. His affidavit was marked as Ex.P16.

¶19

2/4

¶20

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

¶21

O.P.No.210 of 2022

¶22

In view of the evidence recorded, the Original Petition stands

¶23

allowed. Probate is granted. No costs.

¶24

26.09.2022

¶25

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ssi

¶26

3/4

¶27

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

O.P.No.210 of 2022

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.,

ssi

O.P.No.210 of 2022

26.09.2022

4/4

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

Mercury Precision Products (P) Ltd. v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mercury Precision Products (P) Ltd. v. The Superintendent of Police

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

M.Loganathan Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.Girija Vs The Commissioner of Police

P.Vinothkumar Vs v.Mythili

S.Murugan Vs State Represented by

Century plyboards (India) Limited Vs Inspector of police

R.Praveen Kumar Vs The superintendent of police