Dismissed¶31

M. Arumugam v. Neelamani

Madras HC12 Feb 2026SA/124/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court second appeal; proof of Will and attestation; identification of attestor's signature by son insufficient without contemporary documents; hostile attesting witness D.W.3; Will Ex.B.2 dated 23.4.1998; partition suit among siblings; preliminary decree for plaintiffs' shares; Section 100 CPC; no substantial question of law; Sub Court Avinashi; I Additional District and Sessions Court Tiruppur; Justice T.V. Thamilselvi; decided 12-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; findings of the courts below confirmed and preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs stands; appellant permitted to submit his liabilities in the final proceedings for consideration by the trial Court; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶31

M. Arumugam Vs Neelamani — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Will dated 23.4.1998 (Ex.B.2), allegedly executed by the father of the plaintiffs and defendants settling the entire suit properties in favour of the fourth defendant, was duly proved and is genuine. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Mere identification of an attesting witness's signature by his son is not sufficient to prove execution of a Will; the attestor's signature must be verified before the Court by producing contemporary documents, and no such document was produced through D.W.2.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The truth and genuineness of the Will Ex.B.2 has not been proved by the appellant in the manner known to law; one attesting witness turned hostile and did not support the fourth defendant's case.

¶30

Key takeaways

The courts below rightly granted a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs, and their findings require no interference.ratio¶30
The appellant is at liberty to submit his liabilities (borrowed amounts and further construction) in the final proceedings; the trial Court shall consider them and pass appropriate orders as per law within 3 months from the date of filing of such application.ratio¶30
The Second Appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law is involved, and the findings of the courts below stand confirmed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal under S.100 CPC by the fourth defendant against the concurrent findings of the Sub Court, Avinashi (O.S.No.118/2015, decree 09.08.2019) and the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur (AS No.74/2021, decree 11.08.2025) in a partition suit between sisters and brothers. The defence rested on a Will dated 23.4.1998 (Ex.B.2) purportedly settling the entire suit properties in favour of the fourth defendant. Held: proof of a Will cannot rest on a son's mere identification of his deceased father's signature as attestor without contemporary documents verifying the signature; one attesting witness (D.W.3) admitted his signature but disclaimed knowledge of execution and turned hostile. Genuineness of Ex.B.2 therefore not proved; preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs upheld. Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial question of law; appellant free to submit his construction borrowings/liabilities in the final proceedings, to be considered by the trial Court within three months of such application.

¶1

SA No. 124 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI SA No. 124 of 2026 & CMP.No.3558 of 2026

¶6

M. Arumugam S/o Late Murugappan, Thondikadu, Thiruneelakandapuram, Thirumuruganpoondi Post, Rakkipalayam Village, Avinashi Tk, Tiruppur Dist.

¶7

Appellant(s)

¶8

¶9

Neelamani W/o Subramaniam, D.No 3/344, Velayuthampalayam, Avinashi Tk, Tiruppur Dist.

¶10

2.Poovathal (Died) 2. Kannammal W/o. Aruchamy, D.No.1/115, Thandukarampalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur Dt.

¶11

3.Baby @ Achiammal W/o. Balasubramaniam, Thatchan Thottam, Authupalayam, Tirumuruganpoondi Post, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur Dt.

¶12

4.Palanisamy S/o. Ramasamy, D.No.195, Velliampudur, Ettiveerampalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk and Dt.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

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

¶15

SA No. 124 of 2026

¶16

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure to allow the above Second Appeal by setting aside the Judgement and Decree dated 11.08.2025 passed in AS No.74/2021 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur modifying the Judgement and Decree dated 09.08.2019 passed in OS No.118/2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Avinashi.

¶17

For Appellant(s): Mr.K. Govi Ganesan

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Challenging the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the fourth defendant.

¶20

The plaintiff is one of the sister of the appellant. The plaintiff along

¶21

with her sister had filed the suit in O.S.No.118 of 2015 claiming their lawful share in the suit properties. The plaintiffs and the defendants are sisters and brothers. The case of the plaintiffs is that the property originally belonged to their grand father. The plaintiffs’ grand father and his brother have partitioned the property as per the registered partition deed dated 22.05.1941. Thereafter, there was a partition among the plaintiffs and the defendants father and his brothers as per the registered partition deed dated 17.01.1991 and the suit B schedule properties were allotted to the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ father died intestate and the plaintiffs and the defendants are his legal heirs. But the third defendant alone contested the case stating that his father had executed

¶22

a Will dated 23.4.1998 [Ex.B.2] bequeathing entire suit properties in his favour

¶23

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

¶24

SA No. 124 of 2026

¶25

and thereafter he had constructed a house in the suit property and he claims absolute right in the suit property.

¶26

As per the Will Ex.B.2, entire suit property has been settled in favour of the fourth defendant. Whereas, the plaintiff had disputed the Will. To prove the Will, two witnesses have been examined one of the attestor of the Will was examined as D.W.3 and during his evidence, he stated that he was not aware of the execution of the Will, but he admitted his signature in the Will. Another attestor of the Will had died and hence, his son was examined as D.W.2. D.W.2 in his evidence has identified the signature of his father in the Will without supporting document to confirm the signature of his deceased father. The Courts below had held that the evidence of D.W.2 is not reliable since no document has been filed to prove the identity of the signature of Govindaraj, who is the second attestor in the Will, thereby holding that genuineness of the will has not been proved, granted preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the signature of one of the attestor’s in the Will has been identified by his son and hence, the Will has been proved in the manner known to law and the Courts below erroneously granted preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs, which require interference.

¶28

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

¶29

SA No. 124 of 2026

¶30

A perusal of evidence of D.W.2, it is seen that he has not properly identified his father’s signature in the Will [Ex.B2]. Mere identification of the signature alone is not sufficient to prove the execution of the Will and signature of the attestor has to be verified before the Court by producing contemporary documents. But no such document has been produced through D.W.2. Another attesting witness of the Will has turned hostile and not supported the case of the fourth defendant. So truth and genuineness of the Will [Ex.B.2] has not been proved by the appellant as per manner known to law. Hence, the Courts below rightly had granted preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs, which requires no interference. The contention of the appellant is that he had borrowed considerable amount and put up further construction in the suit property. In view of the above submissions, the appellant is at liberty to submit his liabilities in the final proceedings and the same shall be considered by the trial Court and pass appropriate Orders as per law within 3 months from the date of filing of such application.

¶31

Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed, as no substantial question of law is involved, the findings of the Courts below is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous is closed.

¶32

12-02-2026

¶33

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

¶34

SA No. 124 of 2026

¶35

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

¶36

¶37