Dismissed¶28

V.Kamadhenu v. v.Arumugam

Madras HC7 Aug 2025SA/1044/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, S.A. No. 1044 of 2009, C.V. Karthikeyan J., decided 07.08.2025: partition suit O.S. No. 210 of 2004 (Additional District Munsif, Kanchipuram) dismissed as Will Ex.B1 proved through attesting witness DW2 and scribe DW3 under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act; first appeal A.S. No. 6 of 2008 (Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram) also dismissed; Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC dismissed - no substantial question of law arising; connected Miscellaneous Petition dismissed, no costs; no representation for appellant.

What did the court decide?

Ex.B1 (the Will) had been proved in the manner known to law by examination of DW2 and DW3, as enunciated under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act; both Courts below had so held concurrently. ¶22

V.Kamadhenu Vs v.Arumugam — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.A. No. 1044 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

S.A. No. 1044 of 2009

¶7

V.Kamadhenu ... Appellant Vs. 1.V.Arumugam 2.V.Amirtham 3.N.Bhaskar 4.The Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Represented by its Manager Kancheepuram. 5.S.Krishnaveni 6.J.Saradha 7.S.Vijayan 8.S.Sankar 9.S.Thulasi ... Respondents

¶8

This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to allow the Second Appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008 made in A.S. No. 6 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2007 made in O.S. No. 210 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsiff, Kanchipuram.

¶9

Page 1 of 5

¶10

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

¶11

S.A. No. 1044 of 2009

¶12

For Appellant : M/s.S.V.K.Thampi For Respondents : M/s.Ramalingam & Associates (R1, R2 & R7) M/s.P.T.Ramadevi (R5, R6, R8 & R9) M/s.G.Thilakavathi (R4)

¶13

J U D G E M E N T

¶14

There is no representation on behalf of the appellant today. On 12.06.2025, this Court had noted as follows:-

¶15

“ No representation for the appellant. The appeal has not yet been admitted. The suit has been filed seeking partition and separate possession of the properties which according to the plaintiff belonged to the father and he died intestate. However, the defendants marked the Will as Ex.B1. One of the attesting witnesses was examined as D.W.3.

¶16

2. The suit has been dismissed and the first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. No representation for the appellant. List the matter on 19.07.2025, when, the matter would be examined on merits to determine whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration and whether the appeal merits admission.”

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

S.A. No. 1044 of 2009

¶20

2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 210 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kanchipuram, is the appellant herein. The said suit has been filed for partition and for separate possession of the property, which the plaintiff claimed belonged to his father and that his father died intestate.

¶21

3. However, the defendant marked a Will as Ex.B1. One of the attesting witnesses of the Will was examined as DW2 and the scribe of the Will was examined as DW3. Since the Will had been proved in the manner known to law, the suit was dismissed by judgment dated 02.08.2007 by the Additional District Munsif at Kancheepuram. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed an Appeal Suit in A.S. No. 6 of 2008, which came up for consideration before the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram. The Appeal Suit was also dismissed by judgment dated 31.10.2008. The plaintiff had then filed the present Second Appeal.

¶22

4. Both the Courts below had concurrently held that Ex.B1 had been proved in the manner known to law by examination of DW2 and

¶23

Page 3 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

S.A. No. 1044 of 2009

¶26

DW3. It had been proved as enunciated under Section 68 of the Indian

¶27

Evidence Act. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.