Dismissed¶60

B.Chitra v. R.Kala

Madras HC16 Dec 2025CRP(MD)/3788/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Signature and thumb impression comparison by expert; production of contemporary-period documents; Order XXVI Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC; proof of registered Will; examination of attesting witness (Neelamegam, DW2); plaintiff neither attesting witness nor identifier of testator; admission in cross-examination; subsequent purchasers; partition suit O.S.No.65 of 2013; I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli; Article 227 Constitution of India; Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; N.Senthilkumar, J.; 16.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Despite registration, a Will has to be proved in a manner known to law by at least examining one of the two attesting witnesses; if none of the two witnesses is examined, the other modes legally available have to be pursued to prove the Will. ¶53

B.Chitra Vs R.Kala — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed by setting aside the order dated 24.10.2025 in I.A.No.12 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013, by which the trial Court declined to direct the first respondent/plaintiff to produce contemporary-period documents for expert comparison of her signature and thumb impression found in Ex.B1 (Will). +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Since the third respondent/second defendant had already examined one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.B1 Will (Neelamegam, DW2), the trial Court rightly concluded that there was no necessity to compare the signature and thumb impression of the first respondent/plaintiff found in Ex.B1, as she is neither an attesting witness nor a person who identified the testator.

¶53

Key takeaways

Even if there is an admission in cross-examination, it will not strengthen the case of the petitioners, as they are only subsequent purchasers who were not aware of the signature found in Ex.B1.ratio¶58
The Court below rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, and this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.10.2025 in I.A.No.12 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013 (partition suit, I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli), whereby defendants 9 and 12 to 15 — subsequent purchasers from the second defendant — sought a direction under Order XXVI Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC requiring the plaintiff to produce contemporary-period documents for expert comparison of her signature and thumb impression found in Ex.B1, a registered Will. HELD, dismissing the revision: despite registration, a Will must be proved by examining at least one of its two attesting witnesses; here the third respondent/second defendant had already examined attesting witness Neelamegam as DW2, and the plaintiff being neither an attesting witness nor a person who identified the testator, comparison of her signature and thumb impression was unnecessary; further, any admission in her cross-examination does not strengthen the petitioners' case, they being only subsequent purchasers unacquainted with the signature in Ex.B1. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. No order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP(MD) No.19936 of 2025) closed.

¶1

CRP(MD). No.3788 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 16.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD). No.3788 of 2025 and CMP(MD) No.19936 of 2025

¶7

1.B.Chitra

¶8

2.T.Gunasekaran

¶9

3.G.Senthilkumaran

¶10

4.G.Selvakumar

¶11

5.G.Suriyakumar ... Petitioners

¶12

¶13

1.R.Kala

¶14

2.Pitchaiyammal

¶15

3.S.Krishnan

¶16

4.P.Deivanai

5.J.Devi

6.C.Latha

1/7

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

¶21

CRP(MD). No.3788 of 2025

¶22

7.V.Srikantha @ Balakuppusami

¶23

8.N.Ponnusami

¶24

9.S.Veerappan

¶25

10.S.Kiruthika ... Respondents

¶26

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for records and to set aside the Fair and Decretal order passed in I.A.No.12 of 2025 in O.S. No. 65 of 2013 dated 24.10.2025 on the file of Learned I-Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.

¶27

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sivabalan

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order

¶30

passed in I.A.No.12 of 2025 in O.S. No. 65 of 2013 dated 24.10.2025 on the file of I Additional District Court, (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.

¶31

2.The petitioners herein are the defendants 9 and 12 to 15 in the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2013 pending on the file of the I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli. The suit was originally filed by the first respondent/plaintiff as against the respondents 2 to 9/defendants 1 to 8 for partition with respect to the suit property. The petitioners/defendants

¶32

2/7

¶33

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

¶34

CRP(MD). No.3788 of 2025

¶35

9 and 12 to 15 were impleaded as parties to the suit, vide order dated 04.03.2025 and 25.02.2025. When the suit was posted for evidence of petitioners/the defendants 9 and 12 to 15, the petitioners filed the present application in I.A.No.12 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 10 and Section 151 of CPC to direct the first respondent/plaintiff to produce documents, which belong to contemporary period, for comparison of signature and thumb impression of the first respondent/plaintiff, by referring the same to an expert. The said application was dismissed on the ground that there is no necessity to compare the signature and the thumb impression of the first respondent/plaintiff found in Ex.B1, Will, as she is neither an attesting witness nor a person, who identified the testator. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶36

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have purchased the property from the second defendant. In the cross-examination, the first respondent/plaintiff had herself admitted that she had no objection to produce documents from the contemporary period for comparison of her signature and thumb impression. However, when an application was filed for production of documents, contrary to

¶37

3/7

¶38

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

¶39

CRP(MD). No.3788 of 2025

¶40

the statement given by her in the cross-examination, the first respondent

¶41

has taken a stand that the comparison of her signature is not necessary.

¶42

4.He would further submit that as there is a dispute with regard to

¶43

the execution of the Will, it is necessary to compare the signature and thumb impression found in Ex.B1. However, the trial Court, without considering all these aspects, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners, which has caused severe hardship to them. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

¶44

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records.

¶45

6.Since no adverse order is going to be passed in this petition as against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶46

7.Admittedly, the first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition

¶47

as against the respondents 2 to 9/defendants 1 to 8 for partition. Subsequently, the petitioners, who had purchased the property from the

¶48

4/7

¶49

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

¶50

CRP(MD). No.3788 of 2025

¶51

third respondent/second defendant, were impleaded as parties to the suit,

¶52

vide order dated 04.03.2025 and 25.02.2025 by the trial Court. When the suit was posted for evidence of petitioners, the petitioners filed I.A.No.12 of 2025 for production of document, which belongs to contemporary period, to compare the signature and thumb impression of the first respondent found in Ex.B1, by referring the same to an expert.

¶53

8.The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as there is a dispute with regard to the execution of the Will, Ex.B1, it is necessary to compare the signature and thumb impression found in Ex.B1. Admittedly, the Will is a registered one. Despite registration, the Will has to be proved in a manner known to law, by atleast examining one of the two attesting witnesses. If none of the two witnesses are examined, owing to the circumstances of the case, then the other modes legally available have to pursued to prove the Will. In the present case, it is to be noted that the third respondent/second defendant had already examined one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.B1, Will, namely, Neelamegam, as DW2 and as such, the trial Court came to a conclusion that there is no necessity to compare the signature and the

¶54

5/7

¶55

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

¶56

CRP(MD). No.3788 of 2025

¶57

thumb impression of the first respondent/plaintiff found in Ex.B1, Will,

¶58

as she is neither an attesting witness nor a person, who identified the

¶59

testator. Further, even if there is an admission in the cross examination, that will not strengthen the case of the petitioners, as they are only the subsequent purchasers, who were not aware of the signature found in Ex.B1. Thus, this Court is of the view that the Court below has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and this Court also

¶60

does not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned herein.

¶61

9.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed as

¶62

being devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently

¶63

connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

¶64

Speaking : Yes / No 16.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mm

¶65

¶66