Allowed¶30

P.Stalin v. P.Sureshkumar

Madras HC27 Jul 2026A/1558/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Subpoena to attesting witness; contentious probate proceedings; Letters of Administration with Will dated 26.10.1998 annexed; affidavit of attesting witness at non-contentious stage insufficient once due execution disputed; right of defendant to cross-examine attesting witness; Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules; Order XVI Rule 1(2) CPC; Section 151 CPC; T.O.S.No.50 of 2024; A.Nos.1558 and 1559 of 2026; Madras High Court; Additional Master–III; P.W.1 plaintiff examined; no objection endorsement; no costs; decision date 27-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

Both applications allowed with no costs; Registry to issue separate subpoenas to attesting witnesses Mr. A. Elyanar (A.No.1558 of 2026) and Mr. M. Mugilan (A.No.1559 of 2026), requiring them to appear before the learned Additional Master–III for recording their evidence. ¶30

P.Stalin Vs P.Sureshkumar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether subpoenas should issue to Mr. A. Elyanar and Mr. M. Mugilan for their examination as attesting witnesses to the Will dated 26.10.1998 in the contentious proceedings. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Since the due execution of the Will is specifically in issue, the plaintiff is required to prove its execution in the manner known to law, and the evidence of an attesting witness is therefore material for adjudication of the suit.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The fact that an affidavit of an attesting witness was filed at the non-contentious stage does not dispense with his examination in the present contentious proceedings, where the defendant is entitled to cross-examine him.

¶24

Key takeaways

Both applications are allowed; the Registry shall issue separate subpoenas to Mr. A. Elyanar (A.No.1558 of 2026) and Mr. M. Mugilan (A.No.1559 of 2026), requiring them to appear before the learned Additional Master–III for recording their evidence.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete), by common order dated 27-07-2026, allowed A.Nos.1558 and 1559 of 2026 in T.O.S.No.50 of 2024, filed by the plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XVI Rule 1(2) and Section 151 CPC, seeking subpoenas to A. Elyanar and M. Mugilan, the attesting witnesses to a Will dated 26.10.1998, in a suit arising out of a petition for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed wherein the defendant disputes its genuineness and due execution. Held: where due execution of a Will is specifically in issue, the plaintiff must prove execution in the manner known to law and the evidence of an attesting witness is material; an affidavit of an attesting witness filed at the non-contentious stage does not dispense with his examination in contentious proceedings, where the defendant is entitled to cross-examine him. The Registry was directed to issue separate subpoenas requiring the witnesses to appear before the learned Additional Master–III; no costs. Defendant's counsel had endorsed no objection.

¶1

A No. 1558 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶3

A.Nos.1558 and 1559 of 2026 in T.O.S.No.50 of 2024

¶4

P.StalinS/o.K.Palanivel, 6 Canal Street, C B Road, Washermanpet, Chennai - 600 021.

¶5

..Applicant in both applications Vs

¶6

P.Sureshkumar S/o.K.Palanivel, 16, Canal Street, C B Road, Washermanpet, Chennai 600 021.

¶7

..Respondent in both applications

¶8

PRAYER in A No. 1558 of 2026 : This petition is filed under Order XIV Rule -8 in O.S.Rules and Order XVI Rule 1 (2) read with Section 151 of CPC, praying to issue supoena to the attesting witness, A.Elyanar, S/o.Anandan, Hindu, residing at No.13, PPAK Street, No.2, Basin Bridge, Washermanpet, Chennai 600 021.

¶9

PRAYER in A No. 1559 of 2026 : This petition is filed under Order XIV Rule -8 in O.S.Rules and Order XVI Rule 1 (2) read with Section 151 of CPC, praying to issue supoena to the attesting witness, Mr.M.Mugilan, S/o Murugason, No.19/6, Kathbada, 3^rd Cross Lane, Labour Line Chennai-600 021.

¶10

__________Page 1 of 4

¶11

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

¶12

A No. 1558 of 2026

¶13

In both applications:

¶14

For Applicant(s): M/S.S. AmbalavananR.Jayakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.C.P.Sasikumar

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

These applications have been filed by the plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XVI Rule 1(2) and Section 151

¶17

CPC, seeking issuance of subpoena to Mr. A. Elyanar and Mr. M. Mugilan, respectively, for their examination as attesting witnesses to the Will dated 26.10.1998.

¶18

The suit arises out of a petition for grant of Letters of Administration

¶19

with the Will dated 26.10.1998 annexed. The defendant disputes the genuineness and due execution of the said Will. Issues have accordingly been framed, inter alia, as to whether the Will dated 26.10.1998 is the last Will of the deceased and whether its execution has been proved.

¶20

The plaintiff has already been examined as P.W.1 and his crossexamination has been completed. In his evidence, P.W.1 has identified Mr. A. Elyanar and Mr. M. Mugilan as the two attesting witnesses to the Will. The affidavit earlier sworn by Mr. A. Elyanar states that he and Mr. M. Mugilan witnessed the testator execute the Will and thereafter attested it in the presence of the testator and of each other.

¶21

__________Page 2 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

A No. 1558 of 2026

¶24

Since the due execution of the Will is specifically in issue, the plaintiff is required to prove its execution in the manner known to law. The evidence of an attesting witness is therefore material for adjudication of the suit. The fact that an affidavit of an attesting witness was filed at the non-contentious stage does not dispense with his examination in the present contentious proceedings, where the defendant is entitled to cross-examine him.

¶25