Madras High Court
D.Ranganayaki vs N.Govindarajan on 4 June, 2025
2025:MHC:1258
S.A.No.1083 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 23 / 10 / 2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 04 / 06 / 2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
S.A.NO.1083 OF 2019
AND
CMP NO.23632 OF 2019
1.D.Ranganayaki
2.P.Sarojini ... Appellants / Respondents /
Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.N.Govindarajan
2.Sundararaj ... Respondents / Appellants /
Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
January 29, 2019 made in A.S.No.57 of 2014 on the file of the 1st
Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment and Decree
dated February 27, 2013 made in O.S.No.1894 of 2007 on the file of the I
Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Manoharan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan
Page No.1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
S.A.No.1083 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Decree dated January 29, 2019 passed in A.S.No.57 of 2014 by the 'First
Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity],
whereby the Judgment and Decree dated February 27, 2013 passed in
O.S.No.1894 of 2007 by the ‘I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore'
['Trial Court' for brevity] was reversed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties Will
be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFFS' CASE
3. The Suit Property, a residential house, along with a larger
extent of properties originally belonged to one Narayanan by virtue of
Release Deed dated November 2, 1963 [Registered in Document
No.6238/1963]. The plaintiffs are the daughters while the defendants are
the sons of the said Narayanan. The plaintiffs are in possession and
enjoyment of the Suit Property. While so, Narayanan executed a
Registered Will dated March 31, 1999 in favour of the plaintiffs
bequeathing the Suit Property. Post his demise on February 20, 2007, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
Registered Will was duly implemented and acted upon. Since then, the
first plaintiff is residing in the Suit Property with the consent of the
second plaintiff. The second defendant is living in his respective share
allotted through a Settlement Deed dated January 27, 1999 executed by
Narayanan.
3.1. Further it is averred that all of a sudden, there arose a
difference of opinion between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the
defendants forcibly tried to trespass into the Suit Property and tried to
occupy the same questioning the validity of the Will. On August 19, 2007
the defendants openly proclaimed that they will trespass into the Suit
Property and lock the house. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a Suit for the
relief of declaration that the Will is genuine, true, valid and binding on the
defendants and permanent injunction.
DEFENDANTS' CASE
4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the
allegations made by the plaintiffs. It is averred that the Suit Property, a
part of larger co-parcenary property consisting of residential buildings,
belonged to one Nallama Naidu alias Petha Naidu (as ancestral property).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
During Nallama Naidu’s lifetime, his sons – Narayanan and Ranganathan
acquired interest in the coparcenary by birth. After Nallama Naidu’s
demise, they both along with their mother acquired equal rights in the
Nallama Naidu’s share. Subsequently, Narayanan's brother - Ranganathan
and his mother relinquished their respective shares in the properties and
executed a Release Deed in favour of Narayanan on November 2, 1963
[Registered in Document No.6238/1963]. Thus, Narayanan became the
absolute owner of the properties covered under the Release Deed and he
alienated the same in favour of the second defendant by way of Settlement
Deed. The property remaining intact as coparcenary property after the
Settlement is the Suit Property herein. The plaintiffs got married
respectively in the year 1971 and 1974 and thereby, both of them were
excluded to claim any share in the Suit Property. Thus, the Suit Property
is coparcenary property of the coparcenary consisting of the defendants,
their male descendants and their unmarried daughters. Father Narayanan
lived with the second defendant till his passing on February 20, 2007 and
never executed any Will out of his free will and consent in favour of
anybody, much less the Will referred to in the plaint. The defendants are
in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. The plaintiffs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
have no right whatsoever. The defendants never trespassed into the Suit
Property as alleged by the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendants sought to
dismiss the Suit.
TRIAL COURT
5. At trial, first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one
Rangasamy, one of the attestor of the Suit Will, was examined as P.W.2
and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.10 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. The
second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked
on the side of the defendants.
6. After full-fledged trial, the Trial Court held that the Will
executed by Narayanan, who is the father of the plaintiffs and defendants
dated March 31, 1999 in favour of the plaintiffs is genuine, true and valid
and binding on the defendants and hence, decreed the Suit as prayed for.
FIRST APPELLATE COURT
7. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal
before the First Appellate Court, which, after hearing both sides, allowed
the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
holding that the attesting witness (P.W.2), neither identified the signature
of the testator, nor that of his or the co-attestor and therefore, the Will is
not proved as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well as
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
SECOND APPEAL
8. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the present
Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Second Appeal was admitted on November 11, 2019 on the following
substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court
confirms the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of
Civil Procedure?
2. Whether the lower appellate court was right in concluding that
Ex.A5, Will has not been proved in accordance with law?”
ARGUMENTS:
9. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the appellants /
plaintiffs submitted that the Suit Property and a contiguous property are
the absolute properties of Narayanan vide Release Deed dated November
2, 1963. He executed a Registered Will – Ex-A.3 dated March 7, 1997
whereby bequeathed the Suit Property as well as the contiguous property
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
equally among his sons and daughters. Thereafter, some dispute arose
between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the second defendant
lodged a criminal complaint against the plaintiffs and their father -
Narayanan. Thereafter, Panchayat Muchalika dated January 27, 1999 (Ex-
A.2) was entered into between the parties. As per the Panchayat
Muchalika, the plaintiffs father executed Ex-A.4 - Registered Settlement
Deed dated January 27, 1999 in favour of the second defendant in respect
of the said contiguous property. Thereafter, the plaintiffs’ father executed
a Registered Will bequeathing the Suit Property in favour of the plaintiffs.
He further submitted that the plaintiffs examined P.W.2 – Rangasamy who
is the attesting witness in Ex-A.5 – Will. P.W.2 in his chief examination,
has clearly deposed about the execution of the Will. His chief examination
was recorded on November 13, 2009. Due to his old age, his cross
examination was conducted through an Advocate Commissioner on July
30, 2011 i.e., after a lapse of nearly two years. He further submitted that
the defendants have not specifically denied the attestation and execution
of Ex-A.5 – Will. Further, the defendants’ side did not pose any question
to P.W.2 denying the execution of Ex-A.5 - Will. Non cross-examination
questioning the Will would tantamount to admission of Will. The Trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
Court correctly decreed the Suit. But the First Appellate Court, miserably
failed to consider Order VIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
as well as the admission made by D.W.1 in respect of Ex-A.2 – Panchayat
Muchalika and Ex-A.3 – Will dated March 7, 1997 and erred in
dismissing the Suit. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the appeal, set aside
the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court and confirm that of
the Trial Court.
9.1. In support of his arguments, he relied on the following
Judgments:
(i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pentakota Satyanarayana and Others Vs.
Pentakota Seetharatnam and Others, reported in
(2005) 8 SCC 67 ;
(ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah Vs. Muddasani
Sarojana, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 288 ;
(iii) Judgment of this Court in Janaki Devi Vs.
R.Vasanthi and Others, reported in 2005(1)CTC 11;
(iv) Judgment of this Court in Boomathi Vs. Murugesan
and Others, reported in 2023 (2) CTC 273.
10. Per contra, Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan, learned Counsel for
the respondents / defendants contended that the burden of proving the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
Will always lies upon the propounder of the Will and the Will has to be
proved by examining at least one attesting witness. In this case, P.W.2,
witness to Ex-A.5 - Will, did not state anything about the attestation and
the free state of mind of the Executor of the Will. Further, he did not
identify the signatures of the testator, co-attestor as well as his. Further,
Ex-A.5 - Will was not marked through him. In these circumstances, Ex-
A.5 – Will has not been proved. The Trial Court, without considering
Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 63 of Indian
Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act,
1882 erroneously came to the conclusion that the Will in question is
proved. The First Appellate Court, after considering the evidence
available on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the Will in
question is not proved. There is no warrant to interfere in the decision of
the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the Second
Appeal.
10.1. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the
respondents / defendants relied on the following Judgments:
(i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat Vs. Pragnaben
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
Jamnadas Kataria, reported in (2008) 17 S.C.R.
1500 ; and
(ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhani
Ram (died) Through LRs. Vs. Shiv Singh [Civil
Appeal No.8172 of 2009 decided on October 6,
2023; Neutral Citation : 2023 INSC 876].
DISCUSSION:
11. This Court has considered both side submissions and
perused the entire evidence available on record.
Substantial Question of Law No.1
12. For ease of reference, Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC is
reproduced hereunder:
"31.Contents, date and signature of judgment.—The
judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall
state—
(a) the points for determination;
(b) the decision thereon;
(c) the reasons for the decision; and
(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the
relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time
that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by
the Judges concurring therein."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
13. It is apposite to extract the prayer made in the plaint,
hereunder:
“a) For a declaration that the registered Will No.164/1999 dated
31.03.1999 executed and left by late N.Narayanan in favour of
the plaintiffs is genuine, true and valid and binding on the
defendant. AND
b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
men, servants, agents or any other person claiming, from any
way disturbing or interfering with the plaintiffs possession and
enjoyment of the suit property more fully said out hereunder.
c) directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit,
d) and grant such other and further relief's may be deemed just
and necessary of the case and render justice.”
14. It is also apposite to extract the issues framed by the Trial
Court in the Original Suit hereunder:
"1. Whether the suit property was the absolute and
exclusive property of Narayanan, the testator of the alleged
Will ?
2. Whether the said Narayanan was entitled to execute a
Will as alleged in the suit, bequeathing the entire suit
property ?
3. Whether the execution of the Will as alleged in the suit
property [sic] and genuine ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs
claimed in the suit or not ?"
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
15. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Suit Property is the
absolute property of Narayanan, who executed Ex-A.5 – Will as his last
Will bequeathing the Suit Property in their favour. The defendants in their
written statement stated that the Suit Property is co-parcenery property of
their family and coparcenary consisting of the defendants and their sons
and daughters excluding the plaintiffs. In such a scenario, the Trial Court
ought to have rendered a finding with regard to the character of the Suit
Property i.e., whether it was ancestral or absolute in the hands of
Narayanan. The Trial Court seems to have to bundled the discussions for
Issue Nos.1 to 3 together under one single heading, but it has actually
proceeded to straightaway answer Issue No.3 without any discussion on
Issue Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Court straightway held that the Will is
proved and hence the Suit is to be decreed, without any discussion
regarding the nature of Suit Property and the extent of Narayanan’s right
over the same.
16. A First Appellate Court has to decide the questions of law
as well as those of facts. The First Appellate Court herein ought to have
framed points for consideration as per Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
answered the same. In this case, the First Appellate Court ought to have
inter alia framed points for consideration as to the nature of the Suit
Property in the hands of Narayanan, and as to whether the Narayanan had
right to execute Will in respect of the entirety of Suit Property. But the
First Appellate Court simply framed the following points for
consideration:
"(1) Whether the plaintiffs proved the Will dated 31.1.1999?
(2) Whether the Judgment and Decree recorded by the trial court is just and
legal?"
16.1. It has also not covered the aforesaid aspects in its
discussion. Hence, the First Appellate Court failed to comply with Order
XLI Rule 31 of CPC. The Substantial Questions of Law No.1 is answered
accordingly, in favour of the appellants / plaintiffs.
Substantial Question of Law No.(2)
17. As regards the Substantial Questions of Law No.2, the
defendants have not completely denied the execution and attestation of
Ex-A.5 – Will, which is a registered one. They have denied only the free
and voluntary execution of Ex-A.5 – Will in a sound state of mind. Be
that as it may, as per Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a Will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
being a compulsory attestable document, is to be proved even when
admitted, at least through one attesting witness. In general, the
requirement for proof of execution of a Will is that at least one of the
attestor is examined and his/her deposition is such that the stipulations
contained under Section 63 (c) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 are
substantially met. For ready reference, Section 63 (c) is extracted
hereunder:
"(c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses,
each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the
will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the
presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received
from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature
or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of
the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator,
but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be
present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation
shall be necessary."
18. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to the locus
classicus Judgment on proof of Will in H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs.
B.N. Thimmajamma, reported in AIR 1959 SC 443, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court has elaborately considered the law on proof of Will as
hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
"18. What is the true legal position in the matter of
proof of wills? It is well-known that the proof of wills presents
a recurring topic for decision in courts and there are a large
number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party
propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is
no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it
is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory
provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67
and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under
Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any
person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in
his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under
Sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of
persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person
concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof
of the execution of the document required by law to be attested;
and it provides that such a document shall not be used as
evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for
the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions
prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must
be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of
law. Similarly, Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act
are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of
sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by
will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is
meant by the expression “a person of sound mind” in the
context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix
his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person
in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or
mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also
requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses
as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the will set up
by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator
has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the
testator signed the will? Did he understand the nature and
effect of the dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to
the will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the
decision of these questions which determines the nature of the
finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima
facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other
document except as to the special requirements of attestation
prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the
case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills
it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty.
The test to be applied would be the usual test of the
satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters.
19. However, there is one important feature which
distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other
documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and
so, when it is propounded or produced before a court, the
testator who has already departed the world cannot say
whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally
introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the
question as to whether the document propounded is proved to
be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so,
in dealing with the proof of wills the court will start on the
same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The
propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the
testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state
of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the
dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own
free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of
the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the
sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his
signature as required by law, courts would be justified in
making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words,
the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on
proof of the essential facts just indicated."
19. In this case, the plaintiffs examined P.W.2 who is one of
the attestor to Ex-A.5 – Suit Will. He filed chief affidavit before the Court
on November 13, 2009. However, Ex-A.5 - Will was not marked through
him nor did he identify it. The Will was not shown to him at all. When the
attesting witnesses appeared before the Court, it is the duty of the
plaintiffs’ Counsel to put the attestor into the witness box and require him
to identify the Will as well as the signatures therein by showing the Will,
and also mark the Will through him if not already marked. The Court also
is equally duty bound and it ought to ensure proper trial. If the plaintiffs’
side fails to do so, the Court must have stepped in and recorded at least a
minimum in chief from the attesting witness with regard to the execution
of the Will. In this case, both the plaintiffs’ Counsel as well as the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
has miserably failed in their duty.
20. That aside, P.W.2 was cross-examined for the first time on
July 30, 2011, through an Advocate-Commissioner as he was old and
unable to attend Court. The entire cross-examination reads as follows:
'vdJ taJ 89. (vz;gj;J xd;gJ).
vd;dhy; gof;f KoahJ. vdf;F fz;
Mgnu#d; bra;J 12 tUl';fs; Mfptpl;lJ.
ehd; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F te;Js;nsd;. vdf;F
ePjpkd;wj;jpypUe;J rk;kd; VJk; tutpy;iy.
1tJ thjp miHj;Jjhd; ehd; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F
te;njd;. ehd; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; rhl;rp
brhy;tjw;fhf vd;W vd;dplk; ifbaGj;J
th';fpdhh;fs;. mjpy; vd;d vGjpapUe;jJ
vd;W vdf;F bjhpahJ. tHf;F rk;ge;jkhf
vdf;F vJt[k; bjhpahJ.
G.u';frhkp Xg;gk; /-
,d;W (30.07.2011) vd; Kd;dhy; rhl;rpf;F
gpukhzk; bra;Jtpf;fg;gl;L nkw;fz;lthW
rhl;rp Twpdhh;.'
21. At the time of cross-examination of P.W.2, probably due
to old age, he resiles from his chief affidavit and takes a hostile stand. In
such a scenario, the Counsel for the plaintiffs ought to have got
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
permission from the Court and cross-examined P.W.2 to elicit the truth as
per Section 145 read with 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [now
Sections 148 read with 157 of the 'Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023'
('BSA' for short) ]. But they have failed to do so.
22. D.W.1 / second defendant in his chief and cross
examination has categorically admitted Ex-A.3 – Will dated March 7,
1997, as well as Ex-A.2 - Panchayat Muchalika dated March 7, 1997
pursuant to which he obtained Ex-A.4 – Settlement Deed. In Ex-A.2 to
Ex-A.4 documents, the Suit Property as well as the property covered
under the Settlement Deed are described as absolute properties of father –
Narayanan. But when it comes to Ex-A.5 – Suit Will, the defendants turn
around and strangely contend that the Suit Property is coparcenary
property. This calls for a finding on the character of the Suit Property
which the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have failed to
provide.
23. This Court finds it apposite to observe that even while
assuming a moment that the Suit Property is coparcenary property as
contended by the defendants and that the plaintiffs failed to prove Ex-A.5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
– Will, even then, the plaintiffs and the defendants would be entitled to
equal shares in view of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as
amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act No.39 of
2005) as well as in view the Vineetha Sharma Principle [laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineetha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, Neutral
Citation: 2020 INSC 487]. Likewise, if they prove that it is Narayanan’s
absolute property and failed to prove the Will, even then, they would be
entitled to equal shares along with the defendants as per Section 8 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
24. Parties shall never be let to suffer for the failure of the
advocate and the Court in conducting proper trial. First Appellate Court
ought to have remitted the matter for proving the Will afresh as per
Sections 68 or 71 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the case may be [now
Sections 67 and 70 of BSA respectively] read with Section 63 of Indian
Succession Act, 1925, or under Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[now Section 68 of BSA] in the absence of any attesting witness.
25. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case,
in the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
case for remanding to the Trial Court. Accordingly, the matter is
remanded to the Trial Court under Order XLI Rule 23(A) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, for conducting retrial in a proper manner,
ascertaining the character of the Suit Property and proving the Will as per
law. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence, recall and re-
examine the witnesses, and in case none of the attestors of Ex-A.5 – Will
is available, the plaintiffs are at liberty to prove the Will as per Section 63
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 69 or Section 71 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the case may be. To be noted, earlier
evidence shall not be wiped out and shall stay on record.
26. It is clarified that the observations made by this Court
shall not influence the decision of the Trial Court. Trial Court shall decide
the case on merits untrammelled and uninfluenced by the observations
made by this Court. Further, considering the age of the Suit as well that of
the witnesses, and also considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the case within nine (9)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Both the sides
are directed to co-operate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of
the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
RESULT:
27. In fine, the Second Appeal is allowed and the Judgment
and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court are set
aside. The Suit is remanded under Order XLI Rule 23A of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 to the Trial Court for re-trial. Upon receipt of the case
file and a copy of this Judgment, the Trial Court shall restore the case on
its original file and after recording evidence, shall deliver Judgment on
merits in accordance with law. In view of the facts and circumstances of
this case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Consequently, connected
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04 / 06 / 2025
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
TK
To
1.The 1st Additional Sub Court
Coimbatore.
2.The I Additional District Munsif
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
Coimbatore.
3.The V.R. Section
Madras High Court
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN
S.A.NO.1083 OF 2019
04 / 06 / 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:56:11 pm )
