A registered Will can only be revoked according to prescribed legal methods; merely claiming intention or oral arrangements does not invalidate it.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

This revision is filed by the defendants 2 and 3, challenging the dismissal of IA.No.09 of 2024 in O.S. No.184 of 2022 dated 12.07.2024 which was taken out by them for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Sathiaseelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Sudarshan for Mr.S.Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Sathiaseelan would submit that the suit is without any cause of action and also barred by law. Taking me through the plaint the learned counsel would submit that, one Mr.Vayapari Mudaliar had executed a Will on 06.02.1989 and subsequently, a Settlement Deed was executed on 09.11.1989 in favour of the 1^st defendant and another Settlement Deed was executed on 28.05.1990 in favour of one Kolandaivelu. The plaintiffs claim partition and for declaration of the Will dated 06.02.1989 as null and void, in view of the settlement deeds having been executed.

4. The primordial contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Sathiaseelan is that, the Will was in respect of two properties which were described as Schedule A and Schedule B property and in respect of Schedule B property, admittedly the Will was not revoked or cancelled and even both the Settlement Deeds referred above were not in respect of Schedule B property. He would therefore, submit that the Will would still survive in respect of the Schedule B property and no cause of action was available for seeking the relief of partition. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the Trial Court has erred in dismissing the Application for rejection of the plaint.

5. The learned counsel would place reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Anil Behari Ghosh vs Smt Latika Bala Dassi and Others , reported in (1955) SCC Online SC 61;

(ii) Smt.Jaswant Kaur vs Smt.Amrit Kaur and others , reported in (1977) 1 SCC 369 ;

(iii) Badrilal vs Suresh and others , reported in (2021) 18 SCC 129 ;

(iv) Kaikhushru Jehangir vs Bai Bachubai Jehangir & others, reported in (1948) SCC Online Bom 27;

(v) Dipty Chakraborty vs Santhosh Kumar Chakraborty , reported in (2002) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 625;

(vi) Rupinder Singh vs Sita Devi, through her legal heirs and Another , reported in (2023) SCC Online P&H 6939;

(vii) Dhanammal vs Kesava Reddair (Deceased) through his Legal Heirs in S.A.No.940 of 1993 dated 16.11.2009,

(viii) Sridevi Amma and others Vs. Venkitaparasurama Ayyan and others , reported in 1959 SCC Online Ker 63;

(ix) Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives and others, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 ;

(x) S.Saktivel (Dead) by LRs Vs. M.Venugopal Pillai and others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 104 ;

(xi) Ramti Devi (SMT) Vs. Union of India, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 198 ;

(xii) T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and Another , reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 ;

(xiii) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601 ;

(xiv) Shipping Corporation of India Limited Vs. Machado Brothers and Others , reported in (2004) 11 SCC 168 ;

(xv) Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji, Chhota Bhandar Vs. Shri Kanhaiyalal and others , reported in (2008) SCC Online Raj 530;

(xvi) Ranipet Municipality Rep. by its Corner and S