IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Sarasamma – Plaintiff
Vs.
G. Pandurangan – Defendant
T.O.S. No. 38 of 2008 & Tr. C.S. Nos. 888, 889 of 2009
Decided On : 04-03-2016
(b). Succession Act, 1925, Section 72 - The will in dispute said by defendant to be revoked which was denied by the sub registrar on verification – seen that the deed of revocation was for fraud and no reliable evidence to prove will.
G. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
1. T.O.S. No. 38 of 2008 is numbered on conversion of O.P. No. 387 of 2008, praying that Letters of Administration with a Will annexed, may be granted to the plaintiff as the legatee under the Will of the deceased R. Gopal, having effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu and limited to the properties mentioned in the affidavit of assets.
2. Tr. C.S. No. 888 of 2009 numbered on transfer of O.S. No. 4197 of 2008 from the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant herein, her men, agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, especially smooth running of the School, right to use the pathway (marked yellow in the sketch) and to pay the costs of the suit.
3. Tr. C.S. No. 889 of 2009 numbered on transfer of O.S. No. 1435 of 2003 from the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for declaration declaring that the alleged Will dated 29.07.1999 is null and void; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit properties, more-fully described in the schedule to the plaint; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming through them from selling or encumbering with the suit properties, more-fully described in the schedule to the plaint and for costs of the suit.
4. The case of the plaintiff in T.O.S. No. 38 of 2008 is as follows:-
(i) She is the wife of one Mr. T.G. Srinivasalu, who is the sister's son of Late R. Gopal. The said Mr. R. Gopal, during his life time, had purchased immovable properties at Kolathur, Chennai, Guduvancherry and Arakonam out of his hard earned money and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Mr. R. Gopal was married to one Kausalya and out of the said wedlock, he had two girl children namely, Rukmani and Saroja and a male child namely Pondurangan, the respondent herein. The son of Mr. R. Gopal viz. Pondurangan was legally married to one Vijayalakshmi. Thereafter, he married one Nagaratnam and then to one Padma and is now living with one Ambika. The daughter of Mr. R. Gopal namely Rukmani is a spinster and had not married due to her health conditions and another daughter of Mr. R. Gopal namely, Saroja was deserted by her husband. Both the daughters of Mr. R. Gopal were living with him. His wife Kausalya became ill due to the mental torture and ill-treatment meted out by the respondent herein/defendant and eventually predeceased the testator. The defendant started to treat his father and sisters in a inhuman way and subjected them to cruelty. With the intention to grab the land of his father, the defendant joined hands with one Ulagarakshagan and filed a suit against his father, mother and sisters for specific performance. Mr. R. Gopal and his daughters were thrown out of the property purchased by Mr. R. Gopal at No. 19A, III Cross Street, East Poompuhar, Kolathur, Chennai-600 099 and therefore, unable to bear the torture and the ill-treatment meted out to them, the said Mr. R. Gopal and his daughters were living under the care and protection of the plaintiff and her husband Mr. T.G. Srinivasalu at Arakonam.
(ii) The defendant/Mr. G. Pandurangan has already taken sufficient money from the deceased Mr. R. Gopal and bought several properties in various places. The plaintiff states that since she and her husband had looked after the basic requirements and well being of said Mr. R. Gopal, his wife and his two daughters, Mr. R. Gopal executed a Will on 23.06.1999 in favour of the plaintiff and her husband Mr. T.G. Srinivasalu and registered the same as Document No
S.P. Chengalvarayana Naidu vs. Jagannath
Bar Council of India vs. High Court of Kerala
Sohan Lal Gupta vs. Asha Devi Gupta
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India
Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel
Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab
Girja Datt Singh vs. Gangotri Datt Singh
Rani Purnima Debi and Another vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and Another
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma
Vellasaway Sarvai vs. L. Sivaraman Servai
Girja Datt Singh vs. Gangotri Datt Singh
Shashi Kumar Banerjee vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee
Gorantla Thataiah vs. Thotakura Venkata Subbaiah and Others
Smt. Jaswant Kaur vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Others
R. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma
Ammu D/o P. Konnu vs. Krishnan S/o T. Kushunni
Sadachi Ammal vs. Rajathi Ammal
Gurdial Kaur and Others vs. Kartar Kaur and Others
Janki Narayan Bhoir vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam
M.L. Abdul Jabhar Sahib vs. H.V. Venkata Sastri & Sons
Madhukar D. Shende vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage
Management Committee T.K. Ghosh’s Academy vs. T.C. Palit and Others
Hardev Singh vs. Gurmail Singh
Adivekka vs. Hanamavva Kom Venkatesh
Rabindra Nath Mukherjee vs. Panchanan Banerjee
Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur vs. Kirandeep Kaur
Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma
Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani vs. Sajni Prem Lalwani
Bharpur Singh vs. Shamsher Singh
S.R. Srinivasa vs. S. Padmavathamma
M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib vs. M.V. Venkata Sastri & Sons
Perumal vs. Alagammal @ Pappathi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.