Karuppanna Gounder @ Karuppasamy (Deceased)1.Muthu vs Minor Tharunika

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Karuppanna Gounder @ Karuppasamy (Deceased)1.Muthu – Appellant
Versus
Minor Tharunika – Respondent
CMP NO. 9776 OF 2026

Important Points

A Will admitted in a written statement may still require expert opinion when its genuineness is disputed.

Subject

Civil - Will Dispute

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.227

Headnote

First Paragraph: (Statute Analysis) The petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (Facts of the Case) A civil revision petition challenges an order allowing an application to send a Will for expert opinion. (Findings of Court) The trial court allowed the application considering the dispute regarding the genuineness of the Will. Second Paragraph: (Issues) Whether the Will already admitted in a written statement needs to be sent for expert opinion. (Ratio Decidendi) The admission of the Will in written statement does not preclude the need for expert opinion when genuineness is disputed. Last Paragraph: (Result) Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Ponraj

Table of Content
1. whether a will needs expert opinion after written statement admission. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)

ORDER

Challenging the impugned dated 20-02-2026 made in IA.No.9 of 2025 in OS.No.67 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Kangeyam, the defendant has preferred this revision.

2. The plaintiff has filed an application before the trial court, to send the Will dated 16.11.2017 in Ex.B1 relied by the defendant to obtain the expert opinion. The said application was allowed by the trial judge by holding that the said Will was admitted by one of the testator / first defendant while he was alive by filing written statement. In such circumstances, the Will need not be sent for expert opinion. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff in the Suit has filed this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that since the Will was already admitted by one of the testator, it does not require further proof. Therefore, the court below erroneously allowed the application to be sent for expert opinion.

4. On seeing the fact it reveals that the plaintiffs / respondents have filed the Suit for partition and other reliefs against the petitioner / 2^nd defendant and her father, Karuppanna Gounder in O.S.No.67 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Judge Kangeyam, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner’s mother, Chellammal died intestate and the respondents, being the legal representatives of the deceased Saminathan, who is the son of the above Chellammal, claimed share over the property. While so, the petitioner’s mother Chellammal died leaving a Will dated 16.11.2017 and the same was admitted by the petitioner’s father, who is one of the Testator, by filing a Written Statement. But, still the plaintiffs/respondents are disputing the genuineness of the Will. As the respondents / plaintiffs filed the suit for partition, disputing the Will hence to establish their defence they had filed the application to send the Will for Expert Opinion, which was rightly allowed by the Court below and therefore, requires no interference. The parties are directed to appear for the trial proceedings. 5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.