Madras High Court
Srinivasan vs Sevugon on 25 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
SA.No.473 of 2012
1. Srinivasan
2. Kadhirvel ..Plaintiffs/Appellants/
Appellants
Vs.
1. Sevugon
2. Ganapthy
3. Venkatachalam
4. Arumughom ..Defendants /
Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2011 passed in
A.S.No.82 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Court, Namakkal,
Fast Track Court, Namakkal confirming the judgement and decree dated
03.07.2008 made in O.S.No.339 of 2006 on the file of Principal District
Munsif Court, Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Appellant : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar
For Respondents : R1 to R3 – No appearance
M/s.T.L.Thirumalaisamy for
R4.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second
appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties
were bequeathed in their favour through Ex.A5 - Will that was executed
by his grandfather and on his demise, they were seeking for the division
of the properties and the defendants were not coming forward to effect
partition and to allot 1/5th share of the plaintiffs in the suit properties.
Left with no other option, the suit came to be filed seeking for the relief
of partition and for allotment of 1/5th share in the suit properties.
3. Both the Courts below on considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, concurrently held against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Heard Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the
appellants and M/s.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, learned counsel for 4th
respondent and this Court has also carefully considered the findings of
both the Courts below.
5. The entire case of the plaintiffs hinges upon Ex.A5
Sale deed dated 23.12.1993. In order to prove this Will, the plaintiffs
had examined PW2 who was the attesting witness. Both the Courts
below considered the evidence of this witness and it was found that
he did not speak about the signature affixed by the Executor and the
other witness in the Will and accordingly, the Will has not been proved
as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. This finding has
been rendered by both the Courts below on carefully considering the
evidence of PW2 and this Court does not find any perversity on the
findings rendered in this regard. In any event, no substantial question
of law is involved in this second appeal.
6. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order as to costs.
25.04.2022
Speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
rka
To
1. The Additional District Court, Namakkal, Fast Track Court, Namakkal
2. The Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.
Copy To:-
The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J
rka
SA.No.473 of 2012
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
