Partly allowed

R.Ravinder and 2 others v. R.Prabhakar and 3 others

Madras HC8 Apr 2024A/1419/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge permitted the addition of a son as a witness and a Will of an attesting witness under Section 69 of the Evidence Act. The death certificate as an additional document was allowed subject to the son's testimony establishing his father's identity in the deposition.

What did the court decide?

Application No. 1420 allowed to examine the son as a witness under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Application No. 1419 allowed subject to the witness's identification of the signature.

R.Ravinder and 2 others Vs R.Prabhakar and 3… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

A.Nos.1419 & 1420 of 2024 in TOS.No.18 of 2008

¶2

A.Nos.1419 & 1420 of 2024

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

¶4

Application No.1419 of 2024 has been filed seeking permission to the petitioners/plaintiffs to file two further documents as additional document namely the death certificate of Late C.Kannaih and certified copy of Will dated 24.05.2002 executed Late C.Kanniah.

¶5

2.The plaintiffs had filed O.P.No.775 of 2007 seeking grant of Letters of Administration Will annexed with respect to estate of Late. Rachaveti.Soundari @ Jayalakshmi, who died on 01.01.2007. She had, according to the plaintiffs, executed a Will dated 25.02.1999 registered as Document No 20 of 1999 in office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar. Since the respondents had contested grant of Letters of Administration to the said Will, the original petition was converted as TOS.No.18 of 2008. Trial is in progress. The Witness for the plaintiffs is in the witness box. One of the attesting witness, to the said Will was one C.Kanniah. At the time of filing the original petition, his daughter had filed an affidavit relating to knowledge about his signature. Unfortunately, during the proceedings which had been pending before this Court for quite some years, she died. It is under this circumstance, these two applications had been filed seeking to produce two documents namely the death https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis certificate of the C.Kannaih, attesting witness and the certified copy of a Will dated

¶6

1/4

¶7

A.Nos.1419 & 1420 of 2024

¶8

24.05.2002 executed by said C.Kanniah. These two documents are proposed to be

¶9

put forth in evidence by Vishnu Mohan, the son of C.Kanniah. At the time of filing the original petition, he was not in India and his sister had filed an affidavit. But now, it is stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that he is prepared to depose and tender evidence.

¶10

3.Application No.1420 of 2024 had been filed seeking permission to examine him as further witness. A counter has been filed stating that Applications have been filed at the time when witnesses were in the witness box and had been filed belatedly.

¶11

4.But taking into consideration all the factors, particularly, the provision under Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act, which makes it clear that if the attesting witnesses are not available to prove the Will, anybody who is familiar with the signature of an attesting witness could be examined as a witness, the Application No.1420 of 2024 stands allowed.

¶12

5.However, with respect to the two documents mentioned in Application No.1419 of 2024, the death certificate of C.Kanniah is a directly relevant document

¶13

and this document would provide necessary reason as to why, he was not examined https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

2/4

¶15

A.Nos.1419 & 1420 of 2024

¶16

as a witness. Sofar as the 2^nd document is concerned, such document namely the Will

¶17

of C.Kanniah, was sought to be produced only to show the normal signature of C.Kanniah. But the normal signature of C.Kanniah as an attesting witness in the Will, which is the subject matter of the proceedings alone will have to be identified by the witness. He has to speak whether the signature of his father found in the Will is the signature of his father or not.

¶18

6.The Court cannot embark into examining other documents and compare the same with the signature of the attesting witness, as found in the Will and give findings. The findings will have to be given only on the basis of the evidence let in by Vishnu Mohan, the witness who had been now permitted to depose. If he is confronted during the course of cross examination that he does not know the normal signature of his father, then, to clarify, the Will executed by C.Kanniah can be produced as a further document but not otherwise. With that observations, Application No.1419 of 2024 is ordered.

¶19

08.04.2024

¶20

¶21

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶22

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

¶23

3/4

¶24

A.Nos.1419 & 1420 of 2024

¶25

¶26

A.Nos.1419 & 1420 of 2024

¶27

08.04.2024

¶28

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

¶29

4/4

R.Ravinder and 2 others v. R.Prabhakar and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ravinder and 2 others v. R.Prabhakar and 3 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

Sonatika @ Venkatesan Vs State Rep by

The Manager, Hdfc Bank Vs Mr.Nayef Ikram and 9 others

Mohan Raj Vs State Rep.by

P. Chinnapaiyan Vs the State Rep by

Mohammed J K Khan Vs State Rep.by

B.S.Arunkumar Vs Mrs.Vidhya Venkatesh