Dismissed¶16

Karunakaran v. Mr.R.Soundarajan

Madras HC20 Nov 2025A/1628/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Citation application dismissed (Madras High Court, Master, 20.11.2025, A.No.1628 of 2025 in O.P DR.No.132258 of 2024): Executor (6th respondent) denied custody of the original Will dated 31.05.1999 of Late.M.Kalimuthu (registered Document No.79/1999, SRO Kodambakkam); court held no citation can be issued to a respondent who denies possession; dismissed without prejudice to applicant's rights. Keywords: citation, original Will, executor, custody, testator, dismissal without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

No citation can be issued to the 6th respondent to produce the original Will of Late.M.Kalimuthu (deceased), as the 6th respondent has categorically stated that he is not in possession of the original Will. ¶15

Karunakaran Vs Mr.R.Soundarajan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

A.No.1628 of 2025 in

¶3

O.P DR.No.132258 of 2024

¶4

MASTER 20.11.2025

¶5

ORDER

¶6

1. This application is filed by the applicant to issue citation to the

¶7

6th respondent to bring on the original Will of Late.M.Kalimuthu (deceased) dated

¶8

31.05.1999 to produce before this court. It is the case of the applicant that his father Late.Kalimuthu died on 25.10.1999 at his residence and before his death he executed his last Will and testament and registered as Document No.79/1999, Book-3, Volume-102 at Page Nos.93 to 95 in Sub Registrar Office, Kodambakkam bequeathing his property allotted to him by Slum Clearance Board to the applicant after his death in the presence of Mr.A.Gunasekaran and Mr.L.Charles Gabriel and the 6th respondent has been appointed as Executor under the Will. Since, the 6th respondent has not come forward to file the petition before this court he has been impleaded as the 6th respondent and the original Will is believed to be in the custody of 6th respondent.

¶9

2. The 6th respondent has filed his counter stating that the Testator

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

Mr.Kalimuthu (deceased) is his Father-in-Law and that though he has knowledge about

¶13

the execution of the last Will and testament by his Father-in-Law Late.Kalimuthu and appointment of himself as the Executor of the said Will, he denies that the original Will is in his custody and so he is not able to produce the original Will of Late.M.Kalimuthu (deceased) dated 31.05.1999.

¶14

3. Heard. Both side counsels and perused the counter filed by the 6th

¶15

respondent. The 6th respondent has categorically stated that he is not in possession of the original Will of Late.Kalimuthu. In such circumstances, no citation can be issued to the 6th respondent to produce the original Will of Late.M.Kalimuthu (deceased).

¶16

4. In view of the same, this application cannot be entertained and is dismissed

¶17

without prejudice to the rights of the applicant.

¶18

MASTER

¶19

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

Karunakaran v. Mr.R.Soundarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karunakaran v. Mr.R.Soundarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

E.Velu Vs P.Abusa and Another

Polypipes India Private Limited Vs M Prasanna Kumar, Propietor of Sri Vishnu Pvc Pipe Factory

Ganesh Prasant Vs Manappuram Finance (Tn) Private Limited

R.Ravinder Kumar Vs S.Brighton

Mr.S.Muthupalaniappan Vs Mr.Dillibabu and 8 others

Ramu Vs Nil