Allowed¶26

Mr. Abraham Thomas (Since Deceased) 1.Mrs.Licy Thomas and 2 others v. Mr. Sunny thomas and another

Madras HC9 Jul 2025A/2839/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interlocutory Judges Summons application allowed by Madras High Court on 09-07-2025 (C.V. Karthikeyan, J.) in testamentary suit T.O.S.No.26 of 2011: applicants permitted to adduce further evidence - FBIS forensic signature-comparison report on the certified copy of the Will and to examine its author Ragavendra as a further witness; objections in respondents' counter affidavit on genuinity of the comparison procedure left open; themes: proof of Will, further witness, forensic report, evidence cannot be shut out at the doorstep.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the applicants to examine Ragavendra, who issued the Forensic & Biometric Investigation Services (FBIS) report, as a further witness to speak about the report and the documents with which he had compared the signature. ¶26

Mr. Abraham Thomas (Since Deceased) 1.Mrs.Licy Thomas and 2 others Vs Mr. Sunny thomas and another — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants should be permitted to file further documents (the FBIS forensic report and the documents with which the signature on the certified copy of the Will was compared) and to examine Ragavendra, who issued the report, as a further witness. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The application is allowed: the applicants are permitted to examine Ragavendra, who issued the FBIS forensic report, as a further witness to speak about the report and the documents with which he had compared the signature.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

All issues raised in the respondents' counter affidavit questioning the genuinity of the signature-comparison procedure are expressly kept open.

¶25

Key takeaways

There is a duty cast on the Court to examine all possible evidence produced relating to either proof of the Will or disproof of the Will; evidence cannot be shut out at the doorstep.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C.V. Karthikeyan, J.), 09-07-2025: Allowed A.No.2839 of 2025 in T.O.S.No.26 of 2011, permitting the applicants (Mrs. Licy Thomas and 2 others) to file further documents - a report of Forensic & Biometric Investigation Services (FBIS), Vadapalani, Chennai, comparing the signature on the certified copy of the Will of the testator (Mr. Abraham Thomas, since deceased), along with the Aadhar Card of the witness - and to examine Ragavendra, who issued the report, as a further witness. The issues raised in the respondents' counter affidavit questioning the genuinity of the comparison procedure were expressly kept open. The Judge observed that there is a duty cast on the Court to examine all possible evidence relating to either proof or disproof of a Will and that evidence cannot be shut out at the doorstep.

¶1

A.No.2839 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-07-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN A No.2839 of 2025 in

¶6

T.O.S.No.26 of 2011

¶7

Mr. Abraham Thomas (Since Deceased) 1.Mrs.Licy Thomas and 2 others W/o.Abraham Thomas, All are residing at No.5, Govindaswamy Street, Pazhavanthangal, Chennai 600 114. and 2 Others

¶8

Applicant(s)

¶9

¶10

Mr. Sunny thomas and another Both at No.5, Thomas Villa, Govindasamy Street, Pazhavanthangal, Chennai 600 114. and another

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

For Applicant(s):

¶13

Mr.K.Mohanamurali

¶14

For Respondent(s):

¶15

Mr.K.Azhagau Raman

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application has been filed seeking permission to file further documents as annexed in the Judges Summons. The documents annexed are the report of a Forensic Laboratory called Forensic & Biometric Investigation Services (FBIS), Vadapalani, Chennai. Along with the report

¶18

and the document with which they compared the signature of the certified

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

A.No.2839 of 2025

¶22

vum

¶23

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN,J.,

¶24

copy of the Will of the testator had also been produced. Instantly, the other document produced is the Aadhar Card of the witness.

¶25

2. A counter has been filed questioning the genuinity of the procedure adopted in comparing the signatures. But let me keep all those issues open. It would only be appropriate that the witness answers to the issues raised by the respondents in their counter affidavit. There is a duty cast on the Court to examine all possible evidence produced relating to either proof of the Will or disproof of the Will. Evidence cannot be shut out at the door step itself.

¶26

3. I allow this application and permit the applicants to examine Ragavendra who had issued the report as a further witness to speak about

¶27

the report and the documents with which he had compared the signature.

09-07-2025

(½)

vum

A No.2839 of 2025 in T.O.S.No.26 of 2011