K.P.Balasubramanian v. K.P.Ramachandran and 8 others

Madras HC10 Sept 2025A/3937/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: reopening defence evidence; recalling witness; compelling co-defendant/party to depose; DW.1 cross-examination admission; encumbrance certificate; property documents of 1960; will dated 31.08.1978; bequest conditional on marriage; reversion to siblings; partition suit; legal heir impleaded; senior citizen witness; CS No. 567 of 2017; A No. 3937 of 2025; A No. 3938 of 2025; Madras High Court; Dr. Justice R.N. Manjula; 2025.

What did the court decide?

The relevant issues in the suit revolve around the entitlement of one of the brothers of the parties to the suit property and the relative dispossession thereof. ¶¶101

K.P.Balasubramanian Vs K.P.Ramachandran and 8 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶103

Issue for consideration

Whether the 6th defendant, a party to the partition suit who has not offered herself for examination, can be made to depose as a witness on the side of the 1st defendant by reopening and recalling her evidence. +1 more

¶¶61

Court's answer

Both applications (A No. 3937 of 2025 and A No. 3938 of 2025) were dismissed; the 1st defendant cannot compel the 6th defendant's appearance and examination on his side.

¶¶103

Ratio / Principle

The relevant issues in the suit revolve around the entitlement of one of the brothers of the parties to the suit property and the relative dispossession thereof.

¶¶101

Key takeaways

There is no necessity to call the 6th defendant at the instance of the 1st defendant: the suit issues do not require anything from the 6th defendant, who was impleaded only as one of the legal heirs, and the 1st defendant seeks to prove facts extraneous to the matter in issue.ratio¶¶102

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. Justice R.N. Manjula), common order dated 10-09-2025: A Nos. 3937 and 3938 of 2025 filed by the 1st defendant in partition suit CS No. 567 of 2017, praying to reopen and to recall the 6th defendant's evidence for examination on the 1st defendant's side, were dismissed. The applicant relied on DW.1's cross-examination admission that he had obtained the property documents of 1960 from the 6th defendant to apply for an encumbrance certificate. The plaintiff and the 6th defendant (who filed a counter claiming no independent relief) opposed, the latter being a senior citizen who had chosen not to attend. Holding that the suit issues concerned only the entitlement of a deceased brother under a will dated 31.08.1978 (bequest conditional on marriage, with reversion to siblings if unmarried) and the relative dispossession, and that the 6th defendant stood impleaded merely as one of the legal heirs, the court found no necessity to call her at the 1st defendant's instance to prove facts extraneous to the matter in issue, and dismissed both applications.

¶1

A No. 3937 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

A No. 3937 of 2025 AND

¶7

CS NO. 567 OF 2017,A NO. 3938 OF 2025

¶8

K.P.Balasubramanian S/o Late K.Paramasiva Nadar. Old No.5/A, New No.15, Srinivasa rao Road, Mylapore ,Chennai-600 004.

¶9

Applicant(s)

¶10

¶11

K.P.Ramachandran and 8 others S/o Late K.Paramasiva Nadar, No.67, Alamelu Mangapuram , Mylapore,Chennai-600 004.

¶12

2.B.Niranjan

¶13

S/o K.P.Balasubramanian . Old No.5/A, New No.15, Srinivasa rao Road, Mylapore ,Chennai-600 004.

¶14

3.Mrs.S.Sumathi

¶15

D/o late K.P.Sathyaseelan, 3 to 5,residing at No.32/48, Rokkayappa Mudali Street, Mylapore , Chennai-600

¶16

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

A No. 3937 of 2025

004

4.K.P.S.Nirmal

D/o late K.P.Sathyaseelan, 3 to 5,residing at No.32/48, Rokkayappa Mudali Street, Mylapore , Chennai-600 004

¶21

5.Mrs.Deepa

¶22

D/o late K.P.Sathyaseelan, 3 to 5,residing at No.32/48, Rokkayappa Mudali Street, Mylapore , Chennai-600 004

¶23

6.Mrs.G.Mangayarkarasi

¶24

W/o Daniel Gunanithi, No.15, 23 rd Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai90.

¶25

7.Mrs.M.Savithri Devi

¶26

Dr.S.Murugesan, No.25, 21 st Cross Street, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli-627 011.

¶27

8.Shemapandi

¶28

Old No.98/2 No.1 Dr.Natesan Road, 1 st Lane Mylapore ,Chennai 600 004.

¶29

9.V.Jawahar

¶30

S/o A.D.Vincent, No.1 Ezhil Nagar , OMR, Alathur, Thiruporur, Kanchipuram District.

¶31

Respondent(s)

¶32

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

¶33

A No. 3937 of 2025

¶34

A No. 3938 of 2025

¶35

K.P.Balasubramanian

¶36

S/o Late K.Paramasiva Nadar. Old No.5/A, New No.15, Srinivasa rao Road, Mylapore ,Chennai-600 004.

¶37

Applicant(s)

¶38

¶39

K.P.Ramachandran and 8 others S/o Late K.Paramasiva Nadar, No.67, Alamelu Mangapuram , Mylapore,Chennai-600 004.

¶40

2.B.Niranjan

¶41

S/o K.P.Balasubramanian . Old No.5/A, New No.15, Srinivasa rao Road, Mylapore ,Chennai-600 004.

¶42

3.Mrs.S.Sumathi

¶43

D/o late K.P.Sathyaseelan, 3 to 5,residing at No.32/48, Rokkayappa Mudali Street, Mylapore , Chennai-600 004

¶44

4.K.P.S.Nirmal

¶45

D/o late K.P.Sathyaseelan, 3 to 5,residing at No.32/48, Rokkayappa Mudali Street, Mylapore , Chennai-600 004

¶46

5.Mrs.Deepa

¶47

D/o late K.P.Sathyaseelan, 3 to 5,residing at No.32/48, Rokkayappa Mudali Street, Mylapore , Chennai-600

¶48

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

¶49

A No. 3937 of 2025

¶50

004

¶51

6.Mrs.G.Mangayarkarasi

¶52

W/o Daniel Gunanithi, No.15, 23 rd Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai90.

¶53

7.Mrs.M.Savithri Devi

¶54

Dr.S.Murugesan, No.25, 21 st Cross Street, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli-627 011.

¶55

8.Shemapandi

¶56

Old No.98/2 No.1 Dr.Natesan Road, 1 st Lane Mylapore ,Chennai 600 004.

¶57

9.V.Jawahar S/o A.D.Vincent, No.1 Ezhil Nagar , OMR, Alathur, Thiruporur, Kanchipuram District.

¶58

Respondent(s)

¶59

A No. 3937 of 2025

¶60

PRAYER

¶61

To reopen the 6th Defendants side evidence for examination by Applicant/ 1st Defendant.

¶62

A No. 3938 of 2025

¶63

PRAYER

¶64

To recall the 6th Defendants side evidence for examination by Applicant/ 1st Defendant.

¶65

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

¶66

A No. 3937 of 2025

¶67

In both applications:

¶68

For Applicant(s): MR.D. Sai kumaran

¶69

For Respondent(s): MR. G.Santhoshkumar for D6, Mr. D. Prabhu For D2

¶70

COMMON ORDER

¶71

These applications have been filed by the 1st defendant to verify the 6th

¶72

defendant to be examined on the side of the 1st defendant.

¶73

2.The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that DW.1, during his

¶74

cross-examination,admitted that he had obtained the property documents

¶75

pertaining to the year 1960 from the 6th defendant in order to apply for an encumbrance certificate, and so the examination of the 6th defendant as a

¶76

witness is essential.

¶77

The 1st respondent/plaintiff has raised his objection by stating that the

¶78

6th defendant who is the party to the proceedings had not chosen to examine

¶79

herself as a witness, the other defendant to the suit cannot be allowed to compel

¶80

the presence of the 6th defendant. He further submitted that the 6th defendant is

¶81

a senior citizen, and this is exactly the reason why she has not opted to attend

¶82

the court to depose the evidence.

¶83

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

¶84

A No. 3937 of 2025

¶85

The 6th defendant herself has filed her counter, stating that the 6th

¶86

defendant has not claimed any independent relief to necessitate her to come and depose evidence. As she has chosen not to come to the box, the defendant

¶87

cannot compel her appearance for deposing evidence.

¶88

The suit has been filed for the relief of partition, and the suit property is

¶89

said to be the property purchased by one of the brothers of the parties who died

¶90

without marriage.

¶91

6.The plaintiff claims a share in the suit property on the strength of a will

¶92

dated 31.08.1978 wherein one of the brothers of the parties had been bequeathed with certain properties on the condition that he should get married.

¶93

If the said brother has not married in his lifetime, then the property allotted to

¶94

his share will revert to other siblings.

¶95

The 1st defendant has taken a stand that the deceased brother has got

¶96

absolute right over the property and settled the same in favour of the 1st

¶97

defendant.

¶98

The relationship between the parties is also not in dispute. In such a

¶99

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

¶100

A No. 3937 of 2025

¶101

case, the issue now that might arise relevant to the suit would be revolving around the entitlement of one of the brothers of the parties to the suit property and the relative dispossession of the same, etc. Since the issues do not require

¶102

anything to do with the 6th defendant, and the 6th defendant has been impleaded as a party just because she is also one of the legal heirs, I don't find any necessity to call for the 6th defendant at the instance of the 1st defendant to prove facts extraneous to the matter in issue.

¶103

In the result, these applications are dismissed.

¶104

10-09-2025

¶105

Jrs

¶106

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶107

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

¶108

A No. 3937 of 2025