Madras High Court
W/O.Mr.V.Parthasarathy 1A vs Vijay Rangarajan on 14 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 25.10.2025
Pronounced on 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
TOS No. 25 of 2018
1. Smt.Nalini Parthasarathy
In the matter of WILL OF K.S.PADMINI (Deceased)
W/o.Mr.V.Parthasarathy 1A, Srinivas, 30/31,
Maharajah Surya Rao Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018.
2. Smt.Rajini Vijay
W/o.S.Vijay 2A, Srinivas, 30/31,
Maharajah Surya Rao Road,
Alwarpet, chennai-600 018. ... Plaintiffs
Vs.
Vijay Rangarajan
F/402, Nisarg, Mahaveer Nagar,
Kandivili (West),
Greater, Mumbai-400069.
Prayer: Plaint is filed under Sections 232 and 276 of Indian Succession Act 1925
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
r/w. Order XXV Rule 5 of O.S.Rules, seeking Letters of Administration with the
Will annexed, to the plaintiffs as sisters / beneficiaries under the Will of the
deceased to have effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.
For Plaintiff(s): M/s.V.Balasubramanian
For Defendant(s): Ms.R.V.Gayathri
for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam
JUDGMENT
This Testamentary Original Suit has been filed seeking Letters of
Administration with the Will annexed may be granted to the plaintiffs as sisters /
beneficiaries under the Will of the deceased to have effect throughout the State of
Tamil Nadu.
2. The plaintiff has filed an Original Petition in O.P.No.714 of 2017
claiming Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 04.01.2003. Since
the defendant had filed a caveat and objected the same, the Original Petition has
been converted into Testamentary Original Suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
3. The facts pleaded in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs in brief:
The testatrix by name K.S.Padmini was a permanent resident of Chennai.
She had properties within Tamil Nadu. However, she died at Gurgaon, where she
was residing temporarily during her last days. The Will dated 04.01.2003 was
the last Will executed by the deceased K.S.Padmini at Chennai in the presence of
the witnesses. There is no executor appointed by the testatrix. The parents of the
testatrix had pre-deceased her long ago. The testatrix died leaving behind the
plaintiffs who are her sisters and the defendant who is her husband. She had no
child born out of the marriage with the defendant. In the Will dated 04.01.2003,
the testatrix had bequeathed the whole of the suit property in favour of the
plaintiffs with whom she was living.
4. The averments made in written statement of the defendant in brief:
The signature on the said Will appears to be the signature of the deceased
wife of the defendant. However, in all probabilities and likelihood, the signature
in a blank paper has been used to create the alleged Will. The marriage between
the deceased and the defendant has been solemnised on 15.02.2002 only. So,
there was absolutely no necessity for the wife of the defendant to execute such a
Will, that too, within one year from the date of her marriage. The Will does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
even disclose that the deceased was married at the time when the Will was
executed. No reason has been set out for the necessity of the Will at such a
young age of 34 years. No reason has been stated for the alleged Will for blanket
disposition in favour of her sisters who have already got married and settled well.
The witnesses of the Will were none other than the father of the testatrix and
husband of one of the beneficiaries, the second plaintiff herein. Even the
description of the property is also not mentioned in the Will. There is also no
mention about the scribe of the Will. Incidentally, all the three sisters have
similar handwriting and style of writing. Nowhere in the Will, it is stated that it is
a holograph Will. The testatrix lived with the defendant for nearly 14 years after
her marriage and there is no reason to exclude him from inheritance. The
deceased K.S.Padmini had health setback only in the year 2011 when she was
diagnosed with cancer and it was the defendant who took care of the deceased at
that time at Pune. Due to the treatment requirement, she was shifted to Chennai
in the year 2014 as it was felt that the testatrix would get better support in
Chennai. The Will is not a genuine one. Hence, the suit should be dismissed.
5. The facts pleaded in the rejoinder submitted by the plaintiffs are as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
follows:
The suspicion raised by the defendant about the Will is unwarranted. In
fact, one of the attestors is a retired I.A & A.S Officer of the CAG with an
impeccable records of service. The genesis for the Will arose after her marriage
to the defendant in the year 2002. The Will was executed by the testatrix to
protect the interest of her aged father in view of the aggressive demands made by
the defendant demanding dowry and properties. The testatrix refused to yield to
such demands and she started to believe that her husband and his family were
only after her father's wealth. Hence, she was constrained to write out a Will
bequeathing all her properties and assets to her two sisters. So that, the same
remains within her family. That is the reason why the Will has been executed by
her when she was very young and immediately after her marriage. She intended
that her family properties should remain in her family as they are ancestral and
self-earned.
5.1. In the very first line of the Will itself, the description of the testatrix
has been made in such a way that she was a married women. She was going
through a painful period after her marriage because of the greedy behaviour of
her husband. Though the properties were in the father's name, she realised that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
she will be a rightful heir to 1/3rd share out of her father's property. So only the
Will indicates her share of properties inherited by her. This is only to prevent the
defendant from claiming any right over the same. The plaintiffs' father had
entered into a joint development of his old bungalow into apartments in the year
2005 and made a settlement deed only on 09.09.2009 in favour of each of his
daughters. The details of the property owned by K.S.Padmini has been given in
annexure A of the plaint. The words being of sound mind and memory hereby
record “my will, written in my own hand” would show that it is a holography
Will. The defendant did not have the fiduciary trust of the testatrix. It is clear
from the fact that her Income Tax Returns were filed and taken care of by her
father only, even after her marriage. After her father's death, she entrusted it to
her brother-in-law S.Vijay. The defendant did not make any investment in the
name of his deceased wife. When the testatrix was hospitalized for chemotherapy
cycles, surgery etc., one of her sisters was urged to come to Pune to support her,
despite the defendant treated them badly. So, K.S.Padmini decided to shift her
treatment to Chennai during May 2014. Thereafter, she was in the care of her
father and elder sister's family. The testatrix had passed away during September
2016 at her sister Rajini's Home at Gurgaon. There is no suspicious
circumstances surrounding the Will and hence, the Testamentary Original Suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
should be allowed.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following
issues :
"i. Whether the Will dated 04.01.2003 was executed by late
K.S.Padmini out of her own will and volition without being
influenced by any other extraneous consideration ?
ii. Whether the Will dated 04.01.2003 is said to have been
executed by K.S.Padmini under suspicious circumstances for the
reason that it was said to have been executed on 04.01.2003 in
favour of her sisters when the marriage between the deceased
K.S.Padmini and the defendant had been solemnised on 15.02.2002
and there was absolutely no necessity for the wife of the defendant
to execute the Will in favour of her sisters ?
iii. Whether the relationship of late K.S.Padmini and the
defendant Vijay Rangarajan was strained relationship during the
life time of the deceased K.S.Padmini ?
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the grant of letters of
administration with Will annexed as prayed for in the plaint ?
v. To what other relief, the plaintiffs are entitled to ? "
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
7. Mr.V.Balasubramanian, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted
that the testatrix had preferred her father and her brother-in-law to be the
attestors of the Will, because she did not want others to know about the Will.
The Will would show that she did not suppress her marriage with the defendant.
The second attesting witness S.Vijay has been examined as P.W.2. He has stated
that the Will has been signed by the testatrix in the presence of the attestors and
the attestors also stated that they did not know the contents of the Will. He came
there at her call and saw her signing the Will in the presence of him and his
father-in-law. All the properties belonged to the testatrix and the properties were
not acquired by her through her husband. There was a strained relationship
between the testatrix and the defendant and even her marriage has not been
consummated. Even when the plaintiffs went in support of the testatrix during her
treatment, the defendant did not treat them well. So, the testatrix had a reason not
to divulge about her will to any one until her death. The cross examination of
P.W.2 would confirm about his attestation of the Will. The defendant does not
dispute the signature of the testatrix in the Will. It is not possible for the testatrix
and sisters to have similar handwriting as stated by the defendant. The defendant
did not produce any document to prove that he was taking care of the testatrix
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
during her treatment.
8. Ms.R.V.Gayathri, the learned counsel for the defendant, submitted that
the Will does not make any reference about her husband and marital nature
except mentioning as Padmini Vijay. There is no mention in the Will as to why
she opted to bequeath all the properties to the sisters to the exclusion of her
husband. It is unnatural for the attesting witnesses who had stated that they did
not know about the contents of the Will, because the Will is in a single page and
the contents is also very short. The one of the attesting witness S.Vijay has stated
that he did not inform about the Will to his wife's sister Nalini, the first plaintiff
herein, because the father of the testatrix had asked to keep it with himself. That
would only show that the father of the testatrix would know the content of the
Will and cautioned P.W.2. The testatrix had preferred to come down to Chennai
only in view of the treatment and not because of the alleged bitter relationship
with her husband. In the year 2003, the testatrix was living along with her
husband in Pune and there was no necessity for her to mention her permanent
address at Chennai. P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that in Reliance Mutual
Fund statement, the husband of the testatrix has been shown as a nominee and in
the postal savings accounts also, the testatrix has mentioned her husband as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
nominee. That would show that there is no strained relationship between the
testatrix and the defendant. As the testatrix was a house wife, her treatment
expenditure was borne by the defendant only. The sisters of the testatrix knowing
well that the testatrix did not have any children, had planned to create a forged
Will.
9. The plaintiffs are the sisters of the testatrix by name K.S.Padmini who is
the daughter of Late.K.S.Sarangapani. The Will is dated 04.01.2003.
K.S.Padmini got married to the defendant in the year 2002. She was diagnosed to
be suffering from cancer in the year 2011. For better medical treatment
K.S.Padmini came to Chennai in the year 2014 where she was under constant
medical supervision and she died due to Cancer in the year 2016. The suit Will is
an unregistered Will and it is seen to be written in one page as a holographic Will
attested by the father and her brother-in-law of the testatrix. The Will does not
disclose any specific details of the properties and it has been written in a very
generalised fashion that the testatrix desired to give all the movable and
immovable properties including the share of the property inherited by her to her
two sisters, in equal shares. The defendant, who is the husband of the testatrix,
has objected for grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the plaintiffs on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
the allegation that K.S.Padmini did not have any necessity to execute the Will
within a year of her marriage and that too at a very young age of 34 years. He
also raised suspicion as to the vague manner in which the recitals have been
written in the Will. The defendant claimed that the testatrix had lived with him
for 14 years since their marriage and later she was diagnosed with cancer in the
year 2011. Though the defendant gave his utmost care to K.S.Padmini, she was
shifted to Chennai which was her father's place where one of her sisters is also
residing. The defendant submitted that there is no plausible reason stated in the
Will by the testatrix as to why she has to disinherit the defendant and bequeath
her share to her sisters.
10. The marriage relation between the testatrix and the defendant did not
go smooth and they had a strong relationship and hence it is claimed that the
testatrix could have thought it fit to settle her interest in the properties by way of
executing the Will and thereby bequeathing the properties in favour of her sisters.
K.S.Padmini did not have any child born out of her marriage. The first plaintiff
was examined as P.W.1. When she was questioned whether any steps have been
taken in pursuant to the strained relationship between the testatrix and her
husband, P.W.1 replied that she did not interfere in her life because K.S.Padmini
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
was managing on her own. Only in the year 2014 K.S.Padmini shifted herself to
Chennai to continue her treatment at Chennai by being with her father and other
sister. When a specific question was put to P.W.1 whether Pune was the
matrimonial home of K.S.Padmini, she answered that K.S.Padmini and her
husband were working at Bombay and K.S.Padmini used to visit her in-laws in
Pune. From the above evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that K.S.Padmini was living
with her husband only till the year 2014 and since her in-laws were in Pune, she
decided to take treatment at Pune. Had the relationship between K.S.Padmini and
her husband was so strained, it may not be possible for K.S.Padmini to be cordial
with her in-laws in Pune and continue to live with him.
11. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the relationship
between K.S.Padmini and her husband was not going well, the fact remains that
K.S.Padmini had chosen to live with her husband until the year 2014. During the
argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff it is submitted that the marriage
between K.S.Padmini and her husband was not consummated. As K.S.Padmini
had been living with her husband for more than a decade it is difficult to believe
that her marriage with her husband was not consummated. As K.S.Padmini
continued to live with the defendant, it cannot be concluded concretely that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
K.S.Padmini had a strained relationship with her husband Vijay Rangarajan
during her life time. Thus, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
12. Even though the defendant had raised doubts about the sound and free
disposing state of mind on the part of K.S.Padmini for executing the Will, he had
admitted in his evidence that the signature in Ex.A1 - Will, appears that of
K.S.Padmini only. However, he claimed that when K.S.Padmini was staying with
her father, she might have signed in certain blank papers and blank cheques for
some other purpose and that has been made use of the plaintiffs to construct a
Will by themselves without the active involvement and free will of K.S.Padmini.
13. Some of the suspicious circumstances raised by the defendant with
regard to the above point are listed under:
(i) The Will has been executed in the year 2003 itself immediately after
their marriage.
(ii) In the recitals of the Will, even the marital status of K.S.Padmini is not
mentioned.
(iii) The Will is an unregistered one and the recitals are vague and
incomplete without making any specific reference about the details of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
property.
iv) At the young age of 34, there is no necessity for K.S.Padmini to
execute a Will.
(v) At that early point of marriage itself K.S.Padmini could not have
presumed that she could not have any child of her own or she will be affected by
cancer.
(vi) Without any reason, the husband, who is the direct legal heir of
Padmini, was disinherited.
(vii) The attesting witnesses are the father and brother-in-law of the
deceased K.S.Padmini. The said brother-in-law is husband of one of the
beneficiaries.
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the testatrix made
the Will for safety purposes as she wanted to save her father who was being
harassed by the defendant immediately after her marriage. As stated already,
there is no evidence produced on the side of the plaintiffs to prove that there was
a strained relationship between the deceased K.S.Padmini and the defendant.
K.S.Padmini has been living with her husband only till the year 2014 and it is
not the contention of the plaintiffs that K.S.Padmini was separated from her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
husband immediately after her marriage and continued to live at her father's
place. The recitals of the Will also does not state any specific reason about the
apprehension in the minds of the executant to execute the Will immediately after
her marriage.
15. It is true that K.S.Padmini did not have any child of her own and she
could not have imagined that she could never have a child in her life time and
that she would die soon due to cancer. P.W.1 herself has given a categorical
answer that after her marriage K.S.Padmini was living with her husband at
Bombay. In the above circumstances, absolutely no convincing reasons can be
presumed for executing the Will in the year 2003 itself.
16. The recitals of the Will also does not state anything as to why the
testatrix had intended to execute the Will at that early stage of her life and that
too immediately after one year from the date of her marriage. The body of the
Will does not state anything about the husband, the defendant herein. Even if the
relationship between herself and her husband was not smooth, it would have
been natural on her part to exclude him from inheritance by stating any specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
reasons in the Will. A patent omission in the Will about any mention of her
marriage or her husband also creates suspicious circumstance and hence the
plaintiffs have to allay those suspicious circumstances by adducing appropriate
evidence. So, the available evidence does not disclose any reasons for
K.S.Padmini to exclude her husband from inheriting the properties belonged to
her.
17. Question No.49 of the cross-examination of P.W.1 would show that
K.S.Padmini is said to be a house wife. However, in Question No.26 the answer
has been given by the same witness (P.W.1) that K.S.Padmini and her husband
were working at Bombay and K.S.Padmini used to visit her in-laws in Pune. So,
the evidence of P.W.1 appears to be self-contradictory and unreliable in respect
of the occupational status of the testatrix and also the relationship status with the
first respondent. In fact, K.S.Padmini has shown her husband as nominee in her
Post Office account. So, the non-mentioning of her husband in the Will executed
in Ex.A1 creates strong doubts.
18. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that
K.S.Padmini has described herself as "K.S.Padmini alias Padmini Vijay", it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
would show her marital status and hence the Will is not shrouded with any
doubtful circumstances. Even when there is nothing stated in the Will about the
reason for disinheriting the husband of K.S.Padmini, the recitals of the Will does
not specify any details of the property which K.S.Padmini intended to bequeath
to her sisters. So, the very generalized and vague manner in which the Will was
written, creates a doubt about the genuineness of the Will.
19. In the Will there is not even a recital as to her free state of mind and
execution of the Will without anyone's influence. In case, the father of
K.S.Padmini did not want his daughters to have any hold over the family
properties of their marriage, the daughters, including K.S.Padmini, would have
only executed a kind of settlement of lease deed in favour of their father. But that
is not the case with K.S.Padmini. In fact, her father had executed settlement
deeds in favour of his daughters after marriage. Even if the Will does not have
any other reasons, at least, it should have a reason as to why K.S.Padmini had
chosen to execute the Will at that early point of marriage by excluding her
husband from inheriting any right or interest over the properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
20. Mr.K.S.Sarangapani who is the father of the plaintiffs and
K.S.Padmini, had executed a settlement deed on 09.09.2009 in favour of
K.S.Padmini by making her as an absolute owner in respect of a flat. The father
of the plaintiff had entered into a Joint Promotion Agreement with one flat
promoter and built a three-floor building containing several flats. He had settled
each flat to each of his daughters. If K.S.Sarangapani felt that it is unsafe to give
any property to K.S.Padmini in view of her so called “strained relationship” with
her husband, he would not have opted to settle the property in favour of
K.S.Padmini or would have made it conditional.
21. The attesting witness who was examined as P.W.2 has stated in his
evidence that in his opinion there can be two reasons that could have prompted
K.S.Padmini to write a Will. One is her husband’s demand for money to buy a
property and the other is that her marriage was not consummated. Ex.A1 – Will
absolutely lacks any material particulars about the properties which the testator
wished to bequeath in favour of her sisters. P.W.2 being the husband of one of
the sisters of the deceased K.S.Padmini, could have naturally enquired her why
she had chosen to write a Will at that young age. But the evidence of P.W.2 does
not have such a spontaneity shown by him. Even in case K.S.Padmini had chosen
to protect her properties from her husband, they would have certainly prompted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
her to execute a registered Will. Because, the plaintiffs, their husbands and the
father of K.S.Padmini were all well educated and they would have known the
consequences of an unregistered Will which is roughly written in one sheet of
white paper.
22. Though exclusion of a natural heir from inheritance alone cannot be the
reason to suspect the genuineness and voluntariness of the Will, the
disinheritance of the natural legal heir would intensify the suspicious
circumstances. The Will does not even state about the marital status except by
describing her name as “K.S.Padmini @ Padmini Vijay”. There is also no reason
given to completely shadow the husband of the testator.
23. As stated already, the Will is very vague and cryptic without any
specificity. Had it been the Will executed by K.S.Padmini when she was
terminally ill due to cancer, it is understandable that she wanted to dispose her
property as how she desired. But the Will is said to be executed in the year 2003
itself. Even if it is taken to be true that K.S.Padmini had executed the Will in the
year 2003, when her father settled her flat in the year 2009, she would have
thought to make an arrangement in respect of the property acquired by her in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
year 2009. Even before knowing which of the property she is going to inherit or
acquire title, she had made an open and cryptic Will, that too immediately after
one year of her marriage, creates a strong doubt whether K.S.Padmini was acting
on her own free will and executed the Will. The instrument was propounded by
the testatrix without any outside influence and purely on her own volition. It is
difficult to believe that a person who got married in the year 2002 would come to
the immediate conclusion in the year 2003 itself that she is not going to have any
better life with her husband and out of her marriage no child would born to her.
24. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as to the quality of the relationship
between the testatrix and the defendant, is highly improbable for the simple
reason that K.S.Padmini had chosen to live with her husband from the date when
she got married. Even in the year 2014, when she came to Chennai for better
assistance and medical care by staying at her father's place, she did not severe
her relationship with her husband. The time, the pattern and the type of the Will
and the other circumstances do not serve in favour of the plaintiffs to consider the
Will as the one executed by the testatrix on her own volition and without being
influenced by anyone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
25. Even though the defendant had not raised any suspicion as to the
signature of K.S.Padmini found in Ex.A1 – Will, the vague and cryptic nature of
the Will coupled with other suspicious circumstances, do not satisfy the
conscience of the Court to consider the instrument as the one executed by the
testatrix on her own free will. Thus, Issues 1, 2 and 4 are answered
accordingly.
26. As the plaintiffs have failed to dispel those doubtful circumstances
raised by the defendant which were proved to be reasonable and acceptable, that
would only disentitle the plaintiffs to get the Letters of Administration as prayed
by them.
27. In view of the above stated reasons, this Testamentary Original Suit is
dismissed. No costs.
14.11.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
APPENDIX
Plaintiffs' side witnesses:
P.W.1 - Mrs.Nalini Parthasarathy
P.W.2 – Mr.S.Vijay
List of Witnesses on the side of the Plaintiffs:
Sl.No. Exhibit Description
s
1 Ex.P1 Original Will dated 04.01.2003
2 Ex.P2 Original Property tax demand card
3 Ex.P3 Original legal heir certificate dated
25.06.2015
4 Ex.P4 Printout of the death certificate of
Mrs.K.S.Padmini
5 Ex.P5 Original Term Deposit Receipt dated
05.06.2016
6 Ex.P6 Original Term Deposit Receipt dated
09.06.2016
7 Ex.P7 Original Passbook in State Bank of Mysore
bearing account No.54008608373
8 Ex.P8 Original Term Deposit receipt dated
31.03.2016
9 Ex.P9 Original Indian Bank passbook entry
10 Ex.P10 Computer generated copy of the Death
Certificate of K.S.Sarangapani, date of issue
12.03.2023
11 Ex.P11 Computer generated copy of the Death
Certificate of Chambaga Lakshmi
12 Ex.P12 Original PAN card of Kidambi Sarangapani
Padmini
13 Ex.P13 Original Passport of Padmini Vijay
14 Ex.P14 Original cancelled cheque bearing 248582
dated 20.06.2015
15 Ex.P15 Original passbook of Padmini KS bearing
account number 54008573802
16 Ex.P16 Original statement of accounts from IDBI
Bank, C.P.Ramasamy Road, Chennai, for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
Sl.No. Exhibit Description
s
period from 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017
17 Ex.P17 Original share certificate with TATA Power
Company Ltd., Folio No.69710551-6971450, 4200
shares
18 Ex.P18 Original Half Yearly consolidated mutual fund
holding of K.S.Padmini
19 Ex.P19 Original TSR Darshaw Ltd., communication for
transmission shares having Folio
No.H5K0105084
20 Ex.P20 Original account statement issued by UTI in
respect of Folio No.50246112794
21 Ex.P21 Original Half Yearly consolidated account
statement issued by L&T Management Ltd.
22 Ex.P22 Account statement UTI Mutual Fund Folio
No.51716923471
23 Ex.P23 The Original Settlement deed dated 09.09.2009
Defendant side witness:
D.W.1 - Mr.Vijay Rangarajan
List of Witnesses on the side of the Defendant:
Sl.No Exhibit Description
s
1 Ex.D1 The four photographs (series)(4 nos.)
2 Ex.D2 The original Reliance Mutual fund statement
dated 26.12.2006
3 Ex.D3 The original post office savings account pass
book
14.11.2025
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
DR.R.N.MANJULA, J.
bkn
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 04:34:06 pm )
