The court ruled that reliance on unproven wills is insufficient for claiming property rights, reaffirming the necessity of proper probate procedures.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

“Forbearing the Respondents from in any way altering the patta for the properties situated at Palavoyal Village Comprised in Survey No.40/1 measuring 1.48 Acres, Survey No.42 measuring 0.80 Acres, Survey No.631/1 measuring 2.63 Acres, Survey No. 67/1 measuring 1.08 Acres, Survey No.68/1 measuring 2.45 Acres, Survey No.68/3 measuring 0.11 cents, S.No.70 measuring 3.94 Acres, S.No.21/2 measuring 1.57 Acres, S.No.23 measuring 1.12 Acres, S.No.38 measuring 1.39 Acres, S.No.41/2 measuring 0.75 Acres, S.No.43 measuring 0.51 Acres, S.No.66/1 measuring 1.82 Acres, S.No.72 measuring 3.60 Acres, the property situated at Naravarikuppam Village comprised in S.No.86/3 measuring 0.39 Acres and S.No.91/152A measuring 0.05.00 Hectares, S.No.91/152B measuring 0.35.00 hectares till the outcome of the civil suits pending in O.S.No.189 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Judge No.IV, Ponneri”.

2. The facts which have been set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is herein below briefly set out.

3. The petitioner would contend that one Baktavatchalu was possessed of larger extent of lands in various villages in Ponneri Taluk.Given below is the genealogy tree of the said Baktavachalu:

4. On 29.03.1959, Baktavatchalu and his two sons Chakrapani and Dayalan partitioned joint family property under a registered partition deed. Under this deed, Baktavatchalu was allotted the A schedule property, Chakrapani the B Schedule property and Dayalan the C Schedule property and the D Schedule property was kept in common to be enjoyed by the two sons of Baktavatchalu.

5. The 7^th respondent herein who was not satisfied with the share allotted to him filed O.S.No.51 of 1972, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu. This suit was later transferred to Tiruvallur and re-numbered as O.S.No.10 of 1979. The suit was decreed on 27.06.1983. In the said suit, Baktavatchalu, Chakrapani and Baktavatchalu's wife, Kannammal were arrayed as defendants. Pending the suit, Chakrapani died intestate on 08.03.1980 and his wife Mythili was brought on record. The said Chakrapani and his wife Mythili were not blessed with children and therefore Mythili succeeded to the entire estate of her husband, Chakrapani.

6. The petitioner would submit that as per Section 14 of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT , the property had devolved on the wife, Mythili. Therefore, she became the absolute owner. Mythili executed a registered “Will” dated 10.04.1980, bequeathing her entire estate in favour of the children of her only brother, Gajapathy. Therefore, by reason of the “Will”, the petitioner and his sister succeeded to the estate of Mythili. However, the said Mythili did not reveal the fact that she executed such a “Will” and had expired on 19.09.1980.

7. Though the petitioner's mother was an attesting witness, he and his sister were not aware about the “Will” till filing of restoration petition in C.S.No.563 of 1981, which was re-numbered as O.S.No.3403 of 1997. The petitioner and his sister being minors their father Gajapathy filed an administration suit in C.S.No.563 of 1981 on the file of this Cou