SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 1330

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
P.R. Vijayarangam & Another
Versus
P.R. Ramanujam & Others
T.O.S.No.25 of 2002 and C.S.No.325 of 2003
Decided on: 22-04-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs:S.M. Pandian, Advocate.
For the Defendants:S.D. Balaji, Advocate.

The court scrutinized the execution of the Will, predominant role of the plaintiff, and absence of evidence supporting partition.

Headnote:

Probate - Family Property Dispute - Kurai Chit, Testamentary Suit - [FACT OF THE CASE] The plaintiff sought probate of a registered Will dated 11. 2001 bequeathing properties. The defendant laid a suit for partition claiming entitlement to family properties. The court analyzed the execution of the Will, family arrangements, and partition of properties. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found the Will not proved, dismissed the probate suit, and passed a preliminary decree for partition. [ISSUES] Validity of the Will, entitlement to share in family properties, and availability of properties for partition. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court scrutinized the execution of the Will, predominant role of the plaintiff, and absence of evidence supporting partition. [FINAL DECISION] Probate suit dismissed, preliminary decree passed for partition.

Judgment

Common Judgment:

1. P.R. Vijayarangam, the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.25 of 2002 originally filed O.P.No.322 of 2002 seeking grant of probate. As caveat and supporting affidavit was filed by P.R. Ramanujam, the defendant therein, the Original Petition was converted into T.O.S.No.25 of 2002. The defendant in T.O.S.No.25 of 2002 laid a suit in C.S.No.325 of 2003 seeking the relief of partition arraying the plaintiff in the aforesaid T.O.S as the second defendant and his brother one P.R. Srinivasan, who is not a party to T.O.S.No.25 of 2002, as the first defendant. The first defendant P.R. Srinivasan in C.S.No.325 of 2003 remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings.

2. To avoid confusion, the plaintiff in T.O.S.No.25 of 2002, who is the second defendant in C.S.No.325 of 2003, is referred as plaintiff and the defendant in T.O.S.No.25 of 2002, who is the plaintiff in C.S.No.325 of 2003, is referred as defendant.

3. Brief contention of the plaintiff:-There was a family arrangement on 6. 1997 for partition and sale of properties of the father of the respective parties. A kur chit dated 210. 1998 was prepared for partitioning the properties of late P.R. Ramakrishna Mudaliar, the father of the respective parties and the same was signed not only by the respective parties but also by their late sister Selvi. P.R. Vijayalakshmi. Property bearing door No.51, Ayya Mudali Street, Chindadripet, Chennai 600 002 was allotted to the plaintiff and the defendant and their brother P.R. Srinivasan and the property bearing door No.54, Ayya Mudali Street, Chindadripet, Chennai 600 002 was allotted to Selvi. P.R. Vijayalakshmi, the sister of the respective parties. As the properties of the respective parties were already partitioned, the suit for partition laid by the defendant is not maintainable. Further, Selvi. P.R. Vijayalakshmi was the absolute owner of the property bearing door No.8/1, A Block, Pammal Court, Raja Annamalai Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai. She executed a registered Will dated 11. 2001 bequeathing those two properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was appointed as executor in the registered Will and he is also the beneficiary therein. As regards item 4, they were redeemed and sold away even long prior to the death of their mother and sister. Therefore, the plaintiff has sought for grant of probate and prays for dismissal of the suit laid by the defendant seeking partition.

4. Brief contention of the defendant:-P.R. Srinivasan, the first defendant in C.S.No.325 of 2003, who remained ex parte, is also a surviving legal heir of late Ramakrishna Mudaliar through his first wife Shenbagammal. Defendants and the plaintiff inherited the properties bearing door Nos.51 and 54, Ayya Mudali Street, Chindadripet, Chennai 600 002 from their father along with their sister Selvi. P.R. Vijayalakshmi. The property at Pammal Court, Purasawalkam was inherited by the plaintiff, the defendant and late P.R. Vijayalakshmi from their mother. Flat No.8/1, A Block, Pammal Court, Raja Annamalai Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai was exclusively given to P.R. Vijayalakshmi. P.R. Vijayalakshmi was not the absolute owner of the property bearing door No.54, Ayya Mudali Street, Chindadripet, Chennai 600 002. A family arrangement was agreed upon between the parties. But, the release deed could not be executed as the deceased P.R. Vijayalakshmi was not in a sound state of health and mind. Therefore, the family arrangement also could not be acted upon. As far as the Pammal Court property is concerned, the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to half share each, but, in respect of property bearing door Nos.51 and 54, Ayya Mudali Street, Chindadripet, Chennai 600 002, the plaintiff, the defendant and the first defendant in C.S.No.325 of 2003 who remained ex parte are entitled to 1/3 share each. P.R. Vijayalakshmi was suffering from breast cancer. She also encountered stroke which immobilized her. She could not move her left hand and left leg from the year 1988 onwards.














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top