Back
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Vibula Rani, – Appellant
Versus
Rengammal (Died), Subammal (Died), 1) R.Balaji, – Respondent
CRP(MD) 3218 2023
WILLS - TRANSPOSITION OF LEGAL HEIR - LOCUS STANDI - [The court held that persons having no caveatable interest or relation to the testator cannot insist upon the Will being proved strictly in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.]
Fact of the Case:
The deceased plaintiff Rengammal filed a suit to declare that the suit property belonged to her. Pending suit, Rengammal died and her daughter Subbammal got herself transposed as the second plaintiff and prosecuted the suit. After the dismissal of appeals by both sides, the legal heirs of the first defendant preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were dismissed. When the final decree application was pending, the second plaintiff Subbammal died. The first respondent/10th defendant filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1(A) C.P.C. seeking orders to transpose him as the third petitioner in the final decree application, claiming to be the legal heir of the deceased second plaintiff and deceased seventh defendant based on Wills executed in his favor. The revision petitioners/defendants objected, disputing the genuineness of the Wills.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the revision petitioners/defendants, who were not the legal heirs of the deceased second plaintiff or the deceased seventh defendant, had no locus standi to challenge the Wills executed by them in favor of the first respondent/10th defendant. The court further held that the genuineness and validity of the Wills could not be gone into in the present application.
Issues: 1. Whether the revision petitioners/defendants had locus standi to challenge the Wills executed by the deceased second plaintiff and the deceased seventh defendant in favor of the first respondent/10th defendant. 2. Whether the genuineness and validity of the Wills could be gone into in the present application.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the judgment of this Court in S.Ganesan Vs. S.Kuppuswamy and another reported in 2009 2 L.W. 636, wherein, a learned Judge of this Court by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Birla Vs. Rajendra Singh Lodha and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 300 has specifically held that when a person having no cavetable interest or in any way related to the testator cannot insist upon the Will being proved strictly in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. The court held that the genuineness and validity of the Wills could not be gone into in the present application, as it was not the appropriate stage to do so.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and held that the impugned order transposing the first respondent/10th defendant as the third petitioner in the final decree application could not be found fault with.
C.R.P.(MD)No.3218 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 13.12.2023
Pronounced on : 20.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.3218 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.16586 of 2023
1. Vibula Rani
2. Subburam
3. A.Babu
4. Subbulakhsmi
5. Sargunam
... Petitioners
Vs.
Rengammal (Died)
Subbammal (Died)
1. R.Balaji
S.Azhagarsami Naidu (Died)
S.Rengasamy Naidu (Died)
Gomathiammal (Died)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.3218 of 2023
R.Thilagam (Died)
2. S.Rohini Devi
3. S.Rathi Devi
R.Anitha (Died)
4. Minor.Mangal Sree
represented by her father and natural guardian
Mathavan
5. Minor.Yuvasree
represented by her father and natural guardian
Mathavan
6. Mathavan
... Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
06.11.2023 in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in I.A.No.390 of 2004 in O.S.No.57 of
1996 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Srivilliputtur.
For Petitioners
: Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For R1
: Mr.M.Vallinayagam, Senior Counsel
for Mr.D.Nallathambi
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in
I.A.No.04 of 2023 in I.A.No.390 of 2004 in O.S.No.57 of 1996 dated
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.3218 of 2023
06.11.2023 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Srivilliputtur.
2. Originally, the deceased plaintiff Rengammal has filed the suit in
O.S.No.57 of 1996 to declare that the suit property is belonging to her and
for other reliefs. Pending suit, the said Rengammal had died and her only
daughter Subbammal, as per the order passed in I.A.No.920 of 1993, got
herself transposed as second plaintiff and prosecuted the suit.
3. It is evident from the records that preliminary decree was passed
on 06.10.2003 and challenging the same, both the sides have preferred
appeals and after the dismissal of the same, two second appeals came to be
filed in S.A.(MD)Nos.681 of 2010 and 167 of 2012 and that after the
disposal of the same, the legal heirs of the first defendant Alagarsamy
Naidu have preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in S.L.P.Nos.15267 and 15268 of 2022 and the same were ordered
to be dismissed.
4. When the final decree application in I.A.No.390 of 2004 is
pending, the second plaintiff Subbammal had died and the first
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.3218 of 2023
respondent/10th defendant has filed the present application in I.A.No.04 of
2023 under Order 23 Rule 1(A) C.P.C. seeking orders to transpose him as
third petitioner in the final decree application. The revision petitioners/
defendants 3, 5, 6, 12 and 13 have filed counter statement raising
objections. The learned District Munsif, after enquiry, has passed the
impugned order dated 06.11.2023 allowing the application and thereby
permitting the first respondent/10th defendant to transpose himself as third
petitioner in the final decree application. Aggrieved by the impugned
order, the defendants 3, 5, 6, 12 and 13 have preferred the present revision.
5. The case of the first respondent/10th defendant is that the
deceased second plaintiff Subbammal, who is none other than his maternal
grandmother, has executed a Will dated 06.11.2020 in his favour, that his
mother deceased seventh defendant Thilagam has executed a Will dated
02.08.2020 bequeathing her 1/6th share in his favour, that the respondents
4 to 6/defendants 13 to 15 have executed a registered release deed dated
20.10.2022 and thereby relinquishing their 1/16th share in his favour and
therefore, he is entitled to get 9/16th shares, that the respondents 2 and 3/
defendants 8 and 9-his sisters are entitled to get 1/16th share each and that
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
