JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in A.No.478 of 2021: Petition filed Under Order XIV Rule 8 of High Court Original Side Rules read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint as provided for under the provision of order 7 rule 11 of CPC.)

1. This application has been filed by the first defendant seeking for rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff in CS.No.390 of 2020. The applicant/first defendant is the father and the first respondent/plaintiff and the second respondent/second defendant are his sons.

2. The suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking for partition of the properties owned by his late mother Padmavathy. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit A schedule property was purchased by his mother, out of her self acquired funds and suit B, C & D schedule properties were inherited from her ancestors and therefore, they are ancestral properties. The first respondent/plaintiff has claimed 1/3rd share in the suit A schedule property and ½ share in the suit B, C & D schedule properties. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, being a self acquired property of his mother, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are having equal shares and each entitled for 1/3rd share. However, according to the first respondent/plaintiff, insofar as the suit B, C and D schedule properties are concerned, having inherited the same by his late mother Padmavathy from her ancestors, the applicant/first defendant being the husband of his late mother Padmavathy is not entitled for any share in those properties as per the provisions of section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.

3. However, it is the contention of the applicant/first defendant that section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act gets attracted only when his wife late Padmavathy died without any issues. But since the plaintiff and the second defendant are her issues born out of the wedlock with the applicant/first defendant, the applicant/first defendant is also entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit B, C & D schedule properties also, as in the case of suit A schedule property. The applicant/first defendant has made several allegations against the first respondent/plaintiff and submitted that the first respondent/plaintiff never took care of the applicant/first defendant and his wife the deceased Padmavathy who is the mother of the plaintiff.

4. Further it is the contention of the applicant/first defendant that the suit has been under valued and instead of valuing the suit under section 37 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, the first respondent/plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of court fee under section 37(1) of the said act, even though the first respondent/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit properties.

5. The applicant/plaintiff has filed this application seeking for rejection of plaint on the ground that the signatures of the first respondent/plaintiff in the plaint is questionable. According to him, though the first respondent/plaintiff was born in India, he is a Citizen of UK and for about 20 years, he has stayed in UK. According to him, it is highly unlikely that the first respondent/plaintiff would have come to India in January 2020 and signed the plaint as during that time, country was facing Covid-19 Pandemic and foreign travellers were not permitted to enter into India.

6. It is also the case of the Applicant/first defendant that the suit B, C & D schedule Properties were purchased by the applicant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law. According to him, after their death, one of their sons, L.H.Vidyapoornan fabricated a Will which ignored any share to the daughters. According to the applicant/first defendant, one of the daughters, Premavathy filed a suit for partition in CS.No.522 of 1992 and at the same time, the son who was having the Will in his favour filed an application for probate of the Will. According to the applicant/first defendant, the suit filed by Pramavathy for partition was decre