Dismissed

Palanisamy, v. Mariyaee Ammal (Died)

Madras HC12 Jun 2023REV.APLC(MD)/113/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge reviewed applications seeking to revisit an order allowing the petitioner liberty to prove a will. The court observed prior counsel's submissions and reaffirmed the liberty to prove the original will within four months.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to file a petition with the original will dated 09.02.1981 and prove it under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 63 of Indian Succession Act within four months.

Palanisamy, Vs Mariyaee Ammal (Died) — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.113 and 114 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.113 and 114 of 2019 and CMP.(MD).Nos.5297 & 5298/2019 and 4066/2023

¶7

Palanisamy

¶8

..Petitioner in both Rev.Applications

¶9

¶10

1.Mariyaee Amma (died)

2.Seerammal

3.Palaniammal

4.Jayammal

5.P.Dhanalakshmi

6.P.Meenakshi 7.P.Kandasamy (died) 8.Santhanalakshmi

¶16

9.Arun Kumar ..Respondents/Respondents [R8 and R9 are brought on record as LRS of the deceased 7^th respondent vide court order dated 27.04.2023 made in CMP. (MD).nos.4478, 4479, 4480, 4485, 4486 of 2023]

¶17

Prayer: Review Petition filed to review the order passed in

¶18

CRP(MD).No.1735 & 1736 of 2010 dated 30.04.2019.

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶20

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.113 and 114 of 2019

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For respondents : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for R5 and R6

¶22

R1 to R4 – No appearance

¶23

Mr.M.Bindran for R8 and R9.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In the present Review Application, though various grounds are raised to review the order, the learned counsel for the review petitioners brought to my attention to the averments in the written arguments filed by counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 at the time of hearing of CRP. (MD).Nos.1735 and 1736 of 2010, which reads as under:-

¶26

“ As far as the present application in I.A.No.530 of 2010, it is only confined to the details of the amendments as stated above and the fair and decretal order dated 16.07.2010 passed in I.A.No. 530 of 2010 in I.A.No.623 of 1995 in O.S.No.1187 of 1986 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Karuru has to be confirmed, giving liberty to the Revision Petitioner to file appropriate petition with the original copy of the Will dated 09.02.1981 and prove the same in accordance with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act r/w. Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. Unless such application is filed with the original copy of the Will, the Revision Petitioner cannot canvas those points in this

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶28

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.113 and 114 of 2019

¶29

amendment application. “

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that it would be suffice to give liberty to the Revision Petitioner/Review Petitioner to file appropriate petition with the original copy of the Will dated 09.02.1981 and prove the same in accordance with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act r/w. Section 63 of Indian Succession Act.

¶31

The petitioner is given liberty to file appropriate petition with the original copy of the Will dated 09.02.1981 and he shall prove the same in accordance with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act r/w. Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. The above said exercise shall be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

This Review Application is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected C.M.Ps., are closed.

¶33

12.06.2023

¶34

nvsri

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶36

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.113 and 114 of 2019

¶37

J.NISHA BANU,J.

¶38

nvsri

¶39

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.113 and 114 of 2019 and CMP.(MD).Nos.5297/2019 and 4066/2023

¶40

12.06.2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Palanisamy, v. Mariyaee Ammal (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanisamy, v. Mariyaee Ammal (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

J.Shantha Lingam, Vs the Commissioner

The Management of Mrf Ltd., Vs K.Muthukumaran

Food Corporation of India Vs the Regional Director

V. Palanisamy Vs The Commissioner

P.J.Arputharaj, Vs The Commissioner of Commercial

The Management, Vs M.Ravisankr