Disposed

D.Lurthuraj v. Sakunthala David

Madras HC22 Nov 2023CMA/3450/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, hearing an appeal against a dismissal of a succession petition filed under the Indian Succession Act, did not determine the merits of the case or the validity of the will. Instead, it granted liberty to the appellants to file a separate suit following the law to vindicate their rights over the property.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellants to file a separate suit regarding the property; miscellaneous appeal dismissed on no costs.

D.Lurthuraj Vs Sakunthala David — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CMA.No.3450 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CMA.No.3450 of 2010 and

¶7

CMP.Nos.24961, 25070, 25073 & 25067 of 2023

¶8

D.Lurthuraj

¶9

D.Sundarraj

¶10

D.Alphonese (died)

¶11

D.Rajendran

¶12

D.Rajasekar ...Appellants

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Sakunthala David

¶15

Jessie Thambiah (Exparte)

¶16

A.D.David (Died)

¶17

Sakunthala Sundararaj (Died)

¶18

Janat Rajarathanam (Exparte)

¶19

Lilly Chandrakantham (Died) (Exparte)

¶20

Punitha Sundar

¶21

Peter Premkumar (Exparte)

¶22

Suresh David

¶23

Dharmaseeli

¶24

Karuna David 12. Samuel David

¶25

(R3 died, Respondents R10 to 12 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased R3, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in CMP.Nos.16558, 16563 & 16566 of 2023 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)

¶26

1/7

¶27

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

¶28

CMA.No.3450 of 2010

¶29

Nallavan Devadoss Vidhy Asagar

¶30

(R6 died, Respondents R13 is brought on record as LR of the

¶31

deceased R6, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in CMP.Nos.16587, 16580 & 16585 of 2023 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)

¶32

John Sundar

¶33

Williams

¶34

J.S.Alexander

¶35

Solomon

¶36

(R7 died, Respondents R14 to 17 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased R7, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in CMP.Nos.16765, 16764 & 16768 of 2023 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)

¶37

Malini Esther Sathyanesan

¶38

Ranjini Xavier

¶39

Shree Kumar

¶40

Rita Augstine

¶41

(Respondents R18 to 21 impleaded, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in CMP.No.16984 of 2023 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)

¶42

Helan Abby Rehana Devi

¶43

George Benjamin Devaraj

¶44

Suneerkumari Rajendran

¶45

Samuel Lincoin Inbaraj

¶46

(R4 died, Respondents R22 to 25 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased R4, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in CMP.Nos.10434, 10452 & 10460 of 2023 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)

¶47

Kamini David

¶48

(Respondent R26 impleaded, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in CMP.No.7910 of 2021 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)

¶49

...Respondents

¶50

2/7

¶51

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

¶52

CMA.No.3450 of 2010

¶53

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act, to set aside order and decreetal order of the Learned Prl. District Judge of Chengalpattu dated 03.08.2010 in dismissing the Succession Original Petition No.117 of 1998.

¶54

For Appellants	: Mr.V.Raghupathi
For Respondents R1	: No Appearance
For R2	: Exparte vide order dated 10.03.2021
For R3, 4, 6 & 7	: Died (steps taken)
For R5, 8, 9-13 & 18-21	: Mr.D.Daniel
For R14-17 & 22-25	: Not ready notice
For R26	: C.Rajan

¶55

JUDGMENT

¶56

Challenging the order and decree dated 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu dismissing the Succession Original Petition No.117 of 1998, filed by the appellants herein and two others, for grant of Letters of Administration with the WILL dated 03.09.1995, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.

¶57

The case of the appellants is that, the subject scheduled mentioned

¶58

properties were originally purchased by one B.T.Joel through Court auction held on 17.04.1935 in E.P.No.580 of 1934 and he constructed a house

¶59

3/7

¶60

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

¶61

CMA.No.3450 of 2010

¶62

thereon and was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same along with his wife, viz., Soundaram Joel and three daughters, viz., Caroltine Grace Joel, Leela and Nagista Soundaryam respectively and all the three daughters are spinsters. While so, after the demise of the said B.T.Joel and Soundaram Joel, the said Nagista Soundaryam, inherited the subject property, as her other sisters predeceased her and she executed a WILL dated 03.09.1995, in favour of one Late.Elizabeth, the mother of the appellants herein, who took care of her till her death, and appointed her as the executor of the WILL. The said Nagista Soundaryam also died on 06.09.1995. Thereafter, the said Elizabeth and the appellants herein have filed S.O.P.No.117 of 1998, seeking grant of Letters of Administration in their favour for probate of the WILL. However, the said petition was dismissed by the present impugned order and decree on the ground that, the appellants have not proved the WILL beyond reasonable doubt. Challenging the same, the appellants have come up with this Appeal.

¶63

Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents placed on record.

¶64

4/7

¶65

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

¶66

CMA.No.3450 of 2010

¶67

Though very many grounds have been raised by the learned counsel

¶68

on either side, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants restricted the prayer and sought liberty of this Court to file separate suit claiming rights over the subject property. Learned counsel for the respondents have not raised any serious objection for the restricted prayer as sought for by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶69

In view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, grants liberty to the appellants to workout the remedy in the manner known to law, including by way of filing suit. If any such suit is filed, it is open to the parties to canvass all the grounds raised before this Court, before the competent forum, where the suit is to be filed.

¶70

With the above directions, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands

¶71

disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶72

5/7

¶73

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

¶74

CMA.No.3450 of 2010

¶75

Registry is directed to return the original documents to the

appellants.

22.11.2023

skt

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No

¶80

Copy to:

¶81

The Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu.

¶82

The Section Officer, VR Section,

¶83

Madras High Court.

¶84

6/7

¶85

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

¶86

CMA.No.3450 of 2010

¶87

M.DHANDAPANI., J.

¶88

skt

¶89

CMA.No.3450 of 2010 and

¶90

CMP.Nos.24961, 25070, 25073 & 25067 of 2023

¶91

22.11.2023

¶92

7/7

¶93

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

D.Lurthuraj v. Sakunthala David

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Lurthuraj v. Sakunthala David

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

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai Vs Mrs.Seshadri

P.Pushpam Vs K.Rajendran

The Manager Vs v.Thangamani

Minor R.Akilesh Vs R.Shoba

The Manager Vs K.Mahendiran

Minor Bhavatharini Vs S.Natarajan