Dismissed¶104

Rangammal(died) v. Thimmaiyan Alias

Madras HC22 Jan 2025SA/1647/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC second appeal dismissed (S.A.No.1647 of 2011, 22-01-2025, Neut. Cit. 2025:MHC:400): partition suit by second wife/children of Thimmanaicker failed because their entitlement was already settled by the 2/5th-share decree in OS.No.413/1987 (final decree IA.No.720/1993) and plaintiffs 3 & 4 had pursued the dismissed OS.No.9/2002; registered Will dated 20.08.1985 proved via attesting witnesses' sons (Ss.68-69 Evidence Act); no substantial question of law; dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiffs cannot re-agitate the very same matter already agitated by them: having preferred a suit in OS.No.413/1987 and obtained a decree settling their entitlement (and with plaintiffs 3 and 4 having pursued the dismissed OS.No.9/2002), they cannot agitate the same ground again for another decree after Thimmanaicker's lifetime.

Rangammal(died) Vs Thimmaiyan Alias — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶104

Issue for consideration

Whether the Will dated 20.08.1985 alleged to have been executed by Thimmanaicker in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was proved in the manner known to law, and whether it defeats the plaintiffs' claim to inherit his share as intestate heirs. +2 more

¶96

Court's answer

The Will executed by Thimmanaicker in 1985, being prior to OS.No.413/1987, operates only in accordance with the entitlement allotted to him in the final decree and does not affect the 3/5 share retained by him.

¶95

Ratio / Principle

¶95

Key takeaways

The Will (Ex.B6) stood proved on the available mode of proof: with the attesting witnesses dead, their sons were examined as DW.3 and DW.4 and identified their respective fathers' attesting signatures on the Will, consistent with the Sections 68/69 Evidence Act framework recited by the Court.ratio¶96
No ground exists to make out any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, in the second appeal; the Courts below rightly appreciated the issues and arrived at a right conclusion, hence the second appeal is dismissed.ratio¶104

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (R.N. Manjula J., 22-01-2025; Neutral Citation 2025:MHC:400) — S.A.No.1647 of 2011. Plaintiffs, the second wife and children of one Thimmanaicker, sued in O.S.No.11 of 2007 (Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam) for partition of a 4/6th share as his intestate heirs; the defendants are his sons through his first wife Marammal. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs' first appeal was dismissed by the Principal District Court, Erode (judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010 in A.S.No.21 of 2010) confirming the trial Court. The defendants relied on a registered Will dated 20.08.1985 bequeathing the properties to them; with both attesting witnesses dead, their sons (DW.3 and DW.4) identified their fathers' attesting signatures on Ex.B6 Will, in keeping with the Sections 68/69 Evidence Act mode of proof recited by the Court. The Court held that plaintiffs 1 and 2 had already obtained a 2/5th-share decree in OS.No.413/1987 (final decree IA.No.720/1993 dividing shares by metes and bounds) and plaintiffs 3 and 4 had pursued the dismissed OS.No.9/2002, so they could not re-agitate the same matter after Thimmanaicker's death; the 1985 Will operated only on the 3/5 share whose extent was settled by that final decree. Finding no substantial question of law, the Second Appeal was dismissed without costs.