Partly allowed¶63

Mr.S.Ajit Kumar v. Mrs.Kusum Ashok

Madras HC8 Sept 2025A/2572/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judges Summons application; secondary evidence; photocopies admissibility; family card / ration card copies; surrendered originals; proof of genuineness by witnesses; Indian Bank statement of accounts; unauthenticated copy without certification seal; Court Fee on movable property claim; fresh application for bank account details; Writ Petition direction; nominee settlement of deceased's bank amount; medical documents irrelevance to partition claim; scope of suit; adopted son claim; partition suit C.S.No.166 of 2004; Madras High Court interlocutory application.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in respect of document Nos.1 and 2 (photocopies of the old family cards of Shanthilal Jain, to be marked as secondary evidence subject to proof of genuineness through witnesses); dismissed in respect of document Nos.3 to 7. ¶63

Mr.S.Ajit Kumar Vs Mrs.Kusum Ashok — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant / second defendant may be permitted to mark the photocopies of the documents listed in the schedule to the Judges Summons as secondary evidence on the side of the defendants in C.S.No.166 of 2004.

¶41

Court's answer

Document Nos.1 and 2 (copies of the old family cards of Shanthilal Jain showing the applicant as a family member) are relevant as regards the relationship; since the original ration cards were surrendered and cannot be in the applicant's custody, the copies can be permitted to be received and marked as secondary evidence.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

Permission to mark document Nos.1 and 2 carries the condition that the burden is on the applicant to prove them by examining appropriate witnesses who can speak to the genuineness of the entries and other incidental aspects.

¶53

Key takeaways

Document No.3 (statement of accounts of Shanthilal Jain maintained with Indian Bank) cannot be allowed to be received before the Court, as the applicant prescribed no period for the account details sought and the copy bears no seal of authentication certifying it.ratio¶61
If the applicant pays Court Fee for his claim over the movable properties of the deceased, he is at liberty to file a fresh application to call for the account details of late Shanthilal Jain.ratio¶59
Document Nos.4 to 7 (medical documents relating to the applicant himself) cannot be permitted to be received on the applicant's side, because the applicant's health condition has no relevancy to his partition claim based on being the adoptive father's son, and the matter in issue need not be stretched beyond the scope of the suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. R.N. Manjula J.) — Judges Summons application A No. 2572 of 2025 in C.S.No.166 of 2004 (partition suit at defendants'-side evidence stage). The applicant, second defendant claiming to be the adopted son of the original owner Shanthilal Jain, sought to mark seven photocopied documents as secondary evidence. The Court permitted document Nos.1 and 2 (copies of the old family cards showing the applicant as a family member), the originals having been surrendered when new ration cards were obtained, conditioned on the applicant proving their genuineness by examining appropriate witnesses. Document No.3 (Indian Bank statement of accounts of the deceased) was refused: the copy bore no seal of authentication, no period was specified, and the amount in the account had already been settled to the plaintiff as nominee pursuant to a direction in her earlier Writ Petition; the applicant was left at liberty, upon paying Court Fee on his written-statement claim to the deceased's movable properties, to file a fresh application for the account details. Document Nos.4 to 7 (medical records of the applicant, said to show torture by the plaintiff) were refused as having no relevancy to the partition claim and as stretching the matter beyond the scope of the suit. Application partly allowed (docs 1-2) and partly dismissed (docs 3-7).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08-09-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶5

A No. 2572 of 2025 IN

¶6

CS NO. 166 OF 2004

¶7

Mr.S.Ajit Kumar S/o.M.Shanthilal Jain, Old No.39, New No.9, Jeremiah Road, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

¶8

Applicant(s)

¶9

¶10

1.Mrs.Kusum Ashok Wife of Mr.Ashok, Old No.39, New No.9, Jeremiah Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

¶11

1st Respondent / Plaintiff

¶12

2.Mrs.N.MAdan Bai

¶13

W/o.Late Nemichand Jain No.156 Trunk Road Poonamallee Trivellore District 56

¶14

3.Mr.N.Jaya Kumar

¶15

S/o.Nemichand Jain No.156 Trunk Road Poonamallee Trivellore District 56

¶16

4.Mrs.P.Padmavathi

¶17

W/o.Prakash Chand Solanki No.41 Kondapuram Street Trivellore 602 001

¶18

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

¶19

5.Mrs.V.Chandra

¶20

W/o.M.Veerandar Kumar No.605-a Wing Adinath Apartments Tardeo Grantes West Mumbai 400 001

¶21

6.Mrs.P.Nirmala W/o.Prakash Chand Lalwani No.13 Clements Road Doveton (near Sms Hospital) Purasawalkam Chennai 600007

¶22

7.Mrs.P.Lalitha

¶23

W/o.Padam Sen Surana Paras Agency No.90 Nageshwaran South Street Kumbakonam 612 001

¶24

8.Mrs.G.Saraswathi

¶25

W/o.Gouthamchandji Surana No.439 M.T.H. Road Ambattur Chennai 53

¶26

9.Mrs.V.Kalavathi

¶27

W/o.Vijayakumarji Mehta Mahaveer Jewellers Lawrence Road Cuddalore

¶28

10.Mrs.P.Vaijayathimala

¶29

W/o.R.Praveen Kumar Kochar No.86 Mint Street First Floor Sowcarpet Chennai 600 079

¶30

11.Mrs.R.Sharmila

¶31

W/o.Rateesh Kumarji Bhatia Chellani Complex Veerappan Street Sowcarpet Chennai 79

¶32

Respondents / Defendants

¶33

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

¶34

PRAYER : To permit the applicant / second defendant to mark photocopies of the documents as listed in the schedule to the Judges Summons as secondary evidence on the side of the defendants in C.S.No.166 of 2004.

¶35

For Applicant : Mr.A.Palaniappan

¶36

For Respondent(s):M/s. Aashish Jain Lunia

¶37

For D2

¶38

Mr.M.Devendran for D1,D3 to D1

¶39

ORDER

¶40

This Application has been filed to permit the applicant / second defendant

¶41

to mark photocopies of the documents as listed in the schedule to the Judges Summons as secondary evidence on the side of the defendants in C.S.No.166 of 2004.

¶42

The applicant is the second defendant in the main suit. The first respondent / plaintiff has filed a suit for partition by claiming ½ share in the suit property. The suit is now at the stage of recording defendants' side evidence. The applicant who claims himself as the adopted son of the original owner of the property Shanthilal Jain has filed this application to receive the following documents by claiming that they are relevant to the case:

¶43

" (i) Family card of M.Shanthilal Jain.

¶44

(ii) Family Card of M.Shanthilal Jain.

¶45

(iii)Statement of accounts of M.Shanthilal Jain maintained by Indian Bank.

¶46

(iv) Discharge summary for the 2nd defendant by

¶47

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

¶48

Padma Clinic & Nursing Home.

¶49

(v) Medical Certificate issued to the 2nd defendant.

¶50

(vi) Scan findings of the 2nd defendant.

¶51

(vii) Medical Prescription."

¶52

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the documents 1 and 2 are the copies of the old family cards of Shanthilal Jain, in which the applicant's name has also been shown as one of the family members and hence, they are essential documents. As those documents have been surrendered, while getting the new ration cards, the applicant intends to produce the copies of the original as secondary evidence in order to prove his relationship with the deceased Shanthilal Jain.

¶53

The documents 1 and 2 would be no doubt relevant documents as regards the relationship. As the original ration card cannot be in the custody of the applicant and they would have been surrendered, the copies can be permitted to be received and marked. However, the burden is on the applicant to prove the same by examining appropriate witnesses who can speak about the genuineness of the entries and other incidental aspects.

¶54

The third document is the statement of accounts of Shanthilal Jain maintained in the Indian Bank. Even this document has been shown without mentioning any time limit, but in a generalised manner. If the applicant is intended to produce the account statement available with the Indian Bank, he can file an appropriate petition seeking for the same.

¶55

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

¶56

Despite the applicant has filed written statement claiming that there are other movable properties belonged to the deceased Shanthilal Jain and that he has also got a share in those properties, he did not pay any Court Fee with regard to the said claim.

¶57

The learned counsel for the first respondent / plaintiff submitted that the first respondent has filed a Writ Petition earlier for the purpose of seeking a direction to settle the amounts lying in the Bank Accounts of the deceased Shanthilal Jain and hence, those documents may not be available now. The first respondent / plaintiff claims that she has filed a Writ Petition and got a direction in her favour. In such case, it would be sufficient if the applicant could produce the order passed in the Writ Petition alleged to have filed by the first respondent.

¶58

The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that in accordance with the direction of this Court, the above amount lying in the account of Shanthilal Jain has been settled in her capacity as the nominee.

¶59

If the applicant claims any relief in the above said property, he is liable to pay the Court Fee for the same. If the applicant pays Court Fee, then he is at liberty to file a fresh application to call for the account details of late Shanthilal Jain. The necessity to produce the copies would arise only if the applicant could

¶60

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

¶61

not prove through other document that the deceased Shanthilal Jain owned money to his credit in the account maintained by him with the Indian Bank. As the applicant has not prescribed any period from which he is seeking for the account details of late Shanthilal Jain and without having any seal of authentication about the certification of the copy, it cannot be allowed to be received as a document before the Court.

¶62

So far as the document Nos.4 to 7 are concerned, they are medical documents relating to the applicant / second defendant. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that those documents are essential to prove that the applicant was tortured by the plaintiff every now and then. The health condition of the applicant can have no relevancy to the claim of partition made by the applicant by claiming that the deceased Shanthilal Jain was his adoptive father. As the matter in issue need not be stretched beyond the scope of the suit, I feel documents Nos.4 to 7 cannot be permitted to be received as documents on the side of the applicant.

¶63

In view of the above discussion, this Application is party allowed in respect of document Nos.1 and 2 and partly dismissed in respect of document Nos.3 to 7.

¶64

08-09-2025

¶65

gsk

¶66

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

¶67

¶68

1.Mrs.Kusum Ashok

¶69

Wife of Mr.Ashok, Old No.39, New No.9, Jeremiah Road, Vepery,

¶70