2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 96092
MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.KESAVANATHAN – Appellant
Versus
USHA 4 OTHERS – Respondent
OP 163/2020
['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