Madras High Court
D.Lurthuraj vs Sakunthala David on 22 November, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
CMA.No.3450 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CMA.No.3450 of 2010
and
CMP.Nos.24961, 25070, 25073 & 25067 of 2023
1. D.Lurthuraj
2. D.Sundarraj
3. D.Alphonese (died)
4. D.Rajendran
5. D.Rajasekar ...Appellants
Vs.
1. Sakunthala David
2. Jessie Thambiah (Exparte)
3. A.D.David (Died)
4. Sakunthala Sundararaj (Died)
5. Janat Rajarathanam (Exparte)
6. Lilly Chandrakantham (Died) (Exparte)
7. Punitha Sundar
8. Peter Premkumar (Exparte)
9. Suresh David
10. Dharmaseeli
11. Karuna David
12. Samuel David
(R3 died, Respondents R10 to 12 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased R3, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in CMP.Nos.16558, 16563
& 16566 of 2023 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3450 of 2010
13. Nallavan Devadoss Vidhy Asagar
(R6 died, Respondents R13 is brought on record as LR of the
deceased R6, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in CMP.Nos.16587, 16580
& 16585 of 2023 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)
14. John Sundar
15. Williams
16. J.S.Alexander
17. Solomon
(R7 died, Respondents R14 to 17 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased R7, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in CMP.Nos.16765, 16764
& 16768 of 2023 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)
18. Malini Esther Sathyanesan
19. Ranjini Xavier
20. Shree Kumar
21. Rita Augstine
(Respondents R18 to 21 impleaded, vide order dated 17.10.2023
made in CMP.No.16984 of 2023 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)
22. Helan Abby Rehana Devi
23. George Benjamin Devaraj
24. Suneerkumari Rajendran
25. Samuel Lincoin Inbaraj
(R4 died, Respondents R22 to 25 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased R4, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in CMP.Nos.10434, 10452
& 10460 of 2023 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)
26. Kamini David
(Respondent R26 impleaded, vide order dated 17.10.2023 made in
CMP.No.7910 of 2021 in CMA.No.3450 of 2010.)
...Respondents
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3450 of 2010
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 384 of Indian
Succession Act, to set aside order and decreetal order of the Learned Prl.
District Judge of Chengalpattu dated 03.08.2010 in dismissing the
Succession Original Petition No.117 of 1998.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Raghupathi
For Respondents R1 : No Appearance
For R2 : Exparte vide order dated 10.03.2021
For R3, 4, 6 & 7 : Died (steps taken)
For R5, 8, 9-13 & 18-21 : Mr.D.Daniel
For R14-17 & 22-25 : Not ready notice
For R26 : C.Rajan
JUDGMENT
Challenging the order and decree dated 03.08.2010 passed by the
learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu dismissing the Succession
Original Petition No.117 of 1998, filed by the appellants herein and two
others, for grant of Letters of Administration with the WILL dated
03.09.1995, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.
2. The case of the appellants is that, the subject scheduled mentioned
properties were originally purchased by one B.T.Joel through Court auction
held on 17.04.1935 in E.P.No.580 of 1934 and he constructed a house
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
thereon and was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same along
with his wife, viz., Soundaram Joel and three daughters, viz., Caroltine
Grace Joel, Leela and Nagista Soundaryam respectively and all the three
daughters are spinsters. While so, after the demise of the said B.T.Joel and
Soundaram Joel, the said Nagista Soundaryam, inherited the subject
property, as her other sisters predeceased her and she executed a WILL
dated 03.09.1995, in favour of one Late.Elizabeth, the mother of the
appellants herein, who took care of her till her death, and appointed her as
the executor of the WILL. The said Nagista Soundaryam also died on
06.09.1995. Thereafter, the said Elizabeth and the appellants herein have
filed S.O.P.No.117 of 1998, seeking grant of Letters of Administration in
their favour for probate of the WILL. However, the said petition was
dismissed by the present impugned order and decree on the ground that, the
appellants have not proved the WILL beyond reasonable doubt. Challenging
the same, the appellants have come up with this Appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material
documents placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Though very many grounds have been raised by the learned counsel
on either side, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellants restricted the prayer and sought liberty of this Court to file
separate suit claiming rights over the subject property. Learned counsel for
the respondents have not raised any serious objection for the restricted
prayer as sought for by the learned counsel for the appellants.
5. In view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the
case, grants liberty to the appellants to workout the remedy in the manner
known to law, including by way of filing suit. If any such suit is filed, it is
open to the parties to canvass all the grounds raised before this Court, before
the competent forum, where the suit is to be filed.
6. With the above directions, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Registry is directed to return the original documents to the
appellants.
22.11.2023
skt
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
Copy to:
1. The Principal District Judge,
Chengalpattu.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI., J.
skt
and
CMP.Nos.24961, 25070, 25073 & 25067 of 2023
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
