P.R. Shivakumar, J.

1. The plaintiff in the original suit O.S. No. 3643 of 2015 pending on the file of XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the petitioner in the present revision preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter stands listed today for admission. The arguments advanced by Mr. S. Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner are heard. Certified copy of the impugned order of the learned trial Judge dated 01.03.2016 and copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused.

2. The above said suit came to be filed for a declaration that a registered partition deed dated 09.06.1998 bearing Document No. 1441 of 1998 in the Register of the Sub-Registrar, Royapuram, Chennai is null and void and a permanent injunction against the first respondent/first defendant from selling, encumbering or mortgaging any part of the said property to third parties. The suit is being contested by the first respondent/first defendant. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner herein, submitted his proof affidavit to be recorded as his evidence in chief examination. The proof affidavit contains a schedule containing 16 documents to be marked as exhibits on his side. It included a certified copy of a registered Will dated 09.06.1971 bearing Document No. 24 of 1971 and a certified copy of the another registered Will dated 28.02.1973 bearing Document No. 23 of 1973. It also included originals of some other documents, mere copies of some other documents and a xerox copy of the Aadhar Card of the petitioner/plaintiff. The first respondent/defendant did not take any objection regarding the marking of the documents provided in the list excepting the Document Nos. 2 and 3, which are certified copies of the Registered Wills referred to above.

3. The learned trial Judge, sustained the objection raised by the first defendant and did not allow the petitioner/plaintiff to mark those two documents as exhibits as they were Wills executed within the original jurisdiction of the Madras High Court and neither probate of the Will nor Letters of Administration with the Will or copy of the Will annexed came to be obtained.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff invited a specific order from the trial Court for its refusal to permit him to mark the above said documents as exhibits on the side of the petitioner herein/plaintiff. Thus, the learned trial Judge passed a detailed order giving reasons for not admitting those two documents as documentary evidence holding that those two documents were not admissible as it would be against Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act for want of probate or Letters of Administration. It is as against the said order of the learned trial Judge, the petitioner herein has approached this Court invoking the Power of Superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing arguments for admission, submits that what Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act prohibits is the establishment of the right of the party as executor or legatee unless a Court of competent jurisdiction has granted probate or Letters of Administration, where such Probate or Letters of Administration is mandatory as per the said provision. Admittedly, two Wills sought to be relied on by the petitioner/plaintiff were executed within the original jurisdiction of Madras High Court and they dealt with the properties situated within the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. Hence, both sub-clause (a) and sub-clause (b) of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act get attracted making it mandatory that Letters of Administration or Probate ought to have been obtained for the establishment of any right under the said Wills.

6. In this context, the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, before the trial Court, seems to have relied on the following two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1) Smt. J. Yesh