SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 96092

MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.KESAVANATHAN – Appellant
Versus
USHA 4 OTHERS – Respondent
OP 163/2020



Advocates:
['M/S GEETA RAMASESHAN', '', 'Shreeja Kumar', 'S Prabha', 'Uma Vidyapathi', 'M/s Vijay Associates', '', 'RESPONDENTS SET EX-PARTE ON DT', 'vak filed on in D No', 'K Purushothaman', 'S S Vijaya Kumar']

1

O.P.No.163 of 2020

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,

This petition has been filed seeking probate of of a holograph Will

executed by K.Ramaswamy, father of the petitioner. K.Ramaswamy died on

13.08.2009. The Will which he had written is dated 02.07.2003.

2. The mother of the petitioner R.Rajalakshmi had died on

11.03.2013. The first, second and third respondents are the sisters of the

petitioner. The fourth and fifth respondents are the daughters of another

sister, who had predeceased, Vijayalakshmi.

3. It is informed that notice had been directed to all the respondents,

but they had taken a concious decision not to appear before this Court. They

were finally set ex-parte on 22.04.2022.

4. It must also be mentioned that the first respondent had filed a suit

for partition and separate possession of the same property and the said suit

had been transferred to the City Civil Court in view of the pecuniary

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2

jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S.No. 7093 of 2019 now pending before

VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. As plaintiff therein, the first

respondent herein had not appeared before the said Court and her counsel

had filed a memo stating that he had not obtained any instructions. These

facts are stated.

5. During the course of evidence, the petitioner was examined as

PW-1. The unregistered Will dated 02.07.2003 was marked as Ex.P-1, the

death certificates of K.Ramaswamy, Rajalakshmi and Vijayalakshmi, were

marked as Exs. P-2, P-3 and P-4. One of the attesting witnesses Kailasam

was examined as PW-2. He identified the Will and also stated that when the

Will was written, K.Ramasamy was in a sound disposing state of mind

memory and understanding. His affidavit was marked as Ex.P-7.

6. In view of the fact that the respondents are not contesting grant of

probate and the petitioner had complied with necessary procedure required,

this Original Petition stands allowed as prayed for.

Vsg

14.09.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,

vsg

O.P.No.163 of 2020

14.09.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top