[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Sitalakshmi Ramanathan (Deceased) ... vs R.Nagarajan on 30 April, 2026
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
2026:MHC:1690
OSA No. 150 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 23.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
OSA No. 150 of 2025
AND
CMP Nos.9199 & 15778 of 2025
Sitalakshmi Ramanathan (Deceased)
Indira Jayaraman
..Appellant /
2nd defendant
Vs
R.Nagarajan
..Respondent /
Plaintiff
This appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of CPC read with
Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent Act to set aside the Judgement and decree of
this Court dated 04.12.2024 in T.O.S.No.34 of 2015.
For Appellant(s): Mr.A.Muthukumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.A.Diwakar
__________
Page1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 150 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
The 2nd defendant / Indira Jayaraman in T.O.S.No.34 of 2015, aggrieved
by the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge
of this Court, is the appellant herein.
2.The respondent, R.Nagarajan, had filed O.P.No.22 of 2015 before the
Original Side of this Court under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 seeking Letters of Administration to be granted to administer the
estate of K.Ramanathan who died on 05.11.1996 leaving behind a Will dated
04.02.1985 executed and registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Anna Nagar,
Chennai.
3.In the Original Petition, the respondent, R.Nagaraj who was the
petitioner had impleaded his mother Mrs.Sitalakshmi Ramanathan, Mrs.Prema
Sitaraman and Mrs.Indira Jayaraman and also Mrs.Usha Chandrasekar,
Mr.Karthik Chandrasekar and Mrs.Niranjana Chandrasekar the legal
representatives of C.R.Chandrasekar his deceased brother as respondents.
__________
Page2 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Among the said respondents, Mrs.Sitalakshmi Ramanathan and
Mrs.Indira Jayaraman had filed caveat raising objections for the grant of Letters
of Administration and consequently O.P.No.22 of 2015 was converted as
T.O.S.No.34 of 2015 by order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated
07.09.2015. The petitioner, R.Nagarajan, was termed as the plaintiff and the
respondents, Sitalakshmi and Indira Jayaram were termed as the defendants.
5.During the pendency of T.O.S.No.34 of 2015, the first defendant,
Sitalakshmi, died and the 2nd defendant was recognized as her legal
representative as per order dated 23.06.2022 in A.No.1838 of 2022.
T.O.S.No.34 of 2015:
6.The plaintiff claimed that his father K.Ramanathan had executed a Will
dated 04.02.1985. He had however not appointed any executor and that he and
his brother C.R.Chandrasekar were the two beneficiaries. Under the Will, the 1 st
defendant, Sitalakshmi, was granted right to enjoyment of the property at Old
No.5, New No.9, 8th Cross Street West, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030 and
after her lifetime, the ground floor was bequeathed to C.R.Chandrasekar and the
first floor to the plaintiff R.Nagarajan. It was further contended that
C.R.Chandrasekar died and his legal representatives had been impleaded in the
Original Petition. It was also contended that the delay in filing the petition was
neither wilful not wanton, but only because the Will was not available with the
plaintiff.
__________
Page3 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.In the written statement, the 1st defendant contended that the property
had been purchased by K.Ramanathan from Housing Board. It was further
stated that the 2nd defendant’s husband had passed away in the year 1998 and no
reason had been given in the Will as to why she had been disinherited from a
share in the property. It was further contended that the plaintiff had never taken
care of her and only the 2nd defendant had taken care of her. The 2 nd defendant
had also spent monies towards renovation and maintenance of the property. It
was further contended that K.Ramanathan had poor eyesight and his hearing
was affected and therefore could not have written the Will out of free consent. It
was further contended that there was considerable delay in filing petition
seeking Letters of Administration. It was also contended that the existence of
the Will was never informed to anyone and there was no reference about the
same in any of the subsequent documents, particularly a settlement deed. It was
further contended that the relationship between the plaintiff and his father
K.Ramanathan was not cordial. It was contended that the Will should be proved
in manner known to law.
8.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1.Whether the Will dated 04.02.1985 is true and genuine?
2.To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?
__________
Page4 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.During trial, the plaintiff examined six witnesses as PW-1 to PW-6 and
marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. Among the witnesses, the plaintiff
examined himself as PW-1 and examined the 5 th respondent Karthik
Chandrasekar as PW-2 and the 4th respondent Usha Chandrasekar as PW-3 and
the 2nd respondent Prema Sitaraman, as PW-4 and two other witnesses
K.Rangaraj and R.Venkatraman as PW-5 and PW-6. The Will dated 04.02.1985
was marked as Ex.P1. The letter written by the testator to the plaintiff dated
09.07.1996 was marked as Ex.P4. The settlement deed executed by the 1 st
defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 19.08.2010 was marked as Ex.P7. The
notices exchanged between the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff were marked as
Exs.P10 and P11.
10.The defendants did not examine any witness and did not mark any
documents.
11.On the basis of the evidence and the pleadings, the learned Single
Judge held that the plaintiff had examined PW-5 K.Rangaraj to prove the
signature of the second attesting witness and PW-6 R.Venkatraman, the cousin
of the testator, to prove the signature of the testator. It was further held that the
second attesting witness K.S.Padmanabhan who was a neighbour of the plaintiff
had informed about the Will and thereafter, the plaintiff had made enquiries
with the 1st defendant / his mother and she then handed over the original Will to
__________
Page5 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
him. Thereafter, he filed the Original Petition seeking Letters of Administration.
It was contended that the delay in filing the petition had been satisfactorily
explained. The learned Single Judge observed that under the Will the 1 st
defendant was granted right to enjoy the property till her lifetime and thereafter,
the property would devolve to the plaintiff and the other brother
C.R.Chandrasekar.
12.It was also observed that both the attesting witness D.Swaminathan
and K.S.Padmanabhan were alive at the time of filing of the Original Petition
and had also filed their affidavits as required. It was also noted that one of the
attesting witness K.S.Padmanabhan subsequently died and his son K.Rangaraj
was examined as PW-5 to confirm his signature. It was also noted that the
daughter of the testator, Prema Sitaraman who was examined as PW-4 had filed
her consent affidavit and the legal representatives of C.R.Chandrasekar who
were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 had also filed their consent affidavits. It was
further observed that the defendants had not grazed the witness box to tender
evidence and thereby had not subjected themselves for cross examination. In
view of the above reasonings, the Suit was decreed.
13.Challenging the said judgment and decree the 2nd defendant had filed
the present appeal.
__________
Page6 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No.150 of 2025:
14.It had been contended by the appellant that the Will was not a true and
genuine document and that the testator was not in a sound and disposing state of
mind. It was contended that the plaintiff had obtained a settlement deed from
the 1st defendant relating to her undivided one-half share in the suit property and
it was claimed that when he was the beneficiary under the Will there was no
necessity to obtain such a settlement deed. It was further pointed out that one of
the attesting witness was alive and an Advocate Commissioner had also been
appointed to record his evidence, but was not permitted to do so. The appellant
further contended that PW-5 and PW-6 did not have direct knowledge about the
execution or registration of the Will. It was also contended that PW-4 had stated
that the plaintiff had promised to pay a sum of Rs.50/- lakhs to her and such
evidence would itself show that the Will was not true and genuine and it was
contended that the evidence of the said witness should be rejected by this Court.
15.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr.C.A.Diwakar, learned counsel for the respondent.
16.Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the appellant, in his arguments
also pointed out the above said facts. He further argued that the respondent had
not taken effective steps to examine both the attesting witnesses when they were
alive. He further pointed out that one of the attesting witness K.S.Padmanabhan
__________
Page7 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was alive and an application had been taken out to record his evidence by an
Advocate Commissioner. However, the Advocate Commissioner was prevented
from recording the evidence. Later, the plaintiff had examined PW-5
K.Rangaraj, the son of K.S.Padmanabhan as a witness. The learned counsel
pointed out that neither of the two attesting witnesses had been examined and
argued that it must therefore be held that the Will had not been proved in
manner known to law. The learned counsel also pointed out the delay in filing
the petition seeking Letters of Administration and argued that the delay had not
been properly explained. He further pointed out that the appellant had lost her
husband and there was no reason why the testator had not granted her any share
in the property. He further pointed out that the respondent was instrumental in
influencing the deceased 1st defendant to execute a settlement deed with respect
to her undivided share in the suit schedule property and it was pointed out that
when he was the beneficiary under the Will, there was no necessary to call upon
the 1st defendant to execute the settlement deed.
17.The learned counsel also took the Court through the evidence adduced
by the parties and stated that PW-4 had admitted that the respondent had
undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.50/- lakhs to her and it was therefore argued that
the witness had been purchased and her evidence must be rejected. The learned
counsel contended that the testator was not in a sound state of mind. He had
poor vision and his hearing was also impaired. The learned counsel therefore
__________
Page8 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contended that there was every possibility of the Will being procured by
exercising influence and coercion by the respondent.
18.The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of a learned Single
Judge of this Court reported in 2024 (2) CTC 218 (Mad), Kamalam (died) and
others Vs. Sasikala and others, wherein, the learned Single Judge had observed
that when the attesting witnesses did not state that the Will had been signed in
the presence of both witnesses and that the testator saw the other attesting
witness sign the Will and one of the attesting witness stated that he did not see
the other attesting witness sign the Will, it must be held that the will had not
been proved. The learned Single Judge had also examined the stipulations under
Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and had held that unless the
propounder satisfies the Court that both the attesting witnesses are not found,
resort cannot be taken to the procedure contemplated under Section 69 of the
said Act.
19.The learned counsel pointing out the ratio laid in the aforementioned
judgment argued that, in the instant case also, the Will had not been proved
since neither of the two attesting witnesses had been examined during trial.
__________
Page9 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20.The learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 2 SCC 718, Iqbal Basith and Others
Vs. N.Subbalakshmi and Others, wherein, it had been observed that when the
defendant did not appear to depose and to be cross examined and no explanation
was given as to why he did not graze the witness box, an adverse presumption
had to be drawn under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
21.The learned counsel pointed out that, in the instant case, even though
one of the attesting witness was alive, he had not been examined as a witness
and though it is contended that the other attesting witness had died no
documents had been produced before the Court to establish the said fact.
22.The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court reported in 2026-1-L.W.123, S.P.Vijaykumar Vs.
Smt.Padmavathy and others, wherein, it had been held that, when one of the
attesting witness was found and not examined, there was no ground to invoke
Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
23.It was therefore contended by the learned counsel that the appeal
should be allowed and the Court should declare that the Will had not been
proved in manner known to law and that therefore, the judgment and decree of
the learned Single Judge should be set aside.
__________
Page10 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24.Mr.C.A.Diwakar, learned counsel for the respondent, however,
disputed the said contentions. The learned counsel contended that it was the
specific case of the respondent that he was not aware of the execution of the
Will and that when he came to know about the Will from one of the attesting
witness, K.S.Padmanabhan, he had enquired about the same with his mother
who then produced the original Will. The learned counsel contended that
immediately, thereafter, the petition had been filed seeking Letters of
Administration. He pointed out that the Will was a registered Will and therefore
a presumption should be drawn about its genuinety.
25.With respect to the two attesting witnesses, he pointed out that both
the attesting witnesses had filed their affidavits at the time when the Original
Petition was presented before the Court. However, subsequently, one of the
attesting witness died. The other attesting witness was a senior citizen of
advanced age. The respondent had therefore taken steps to examine him through
an Advocate Commissioner, but the day before the Commissioner could record
his evidence, the witness fell sick and therefore, his evidence could not be
recorded. The learned counsel pointed out that his son had been examined as
PW-5 and he had identified the signatures found in the Will.
26.Additionally, the respondent had also examined PW-6, a close relative
of the testator who identified the signature of the testator in the Will. The
__________
Page11 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned counsel therefore argued that there has been sufficient compliance of the
requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
27.The learned counsel further pointed out the evidence of PW-2, PW-3
and PW-4 who were initially arrayed as respondents in the Original Petition and
had stated that they had no objection for grant of Letters of Administration. The
learned counsel stated that the settlement deed which had been executed by the
mother was executed voluntarily by her and that the respondent had no role in
the execution of the said settlement deed. He pointed out that the mother knew
about the Will and had still executed the settlement deed.
28.The learned counsel was emphatic in his submission that the Will had
been executed when the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind. He
therefore stated that the Court should hold that the Will had been duly proved in
manner known to law and should dismiss the appeal.
29.The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1488, Metpalli Lasum Bai
(Since Dead) and Others Vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by Lrs., wherein, it had
been held that if a Will was a registered document, the burden would lie on the
party who disputed its existence who or who contended that it was not executed
in manner known to law to prove the alleged suspicious circumstances. The
__________
Page12 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned counsel stated that in the instant case, the appellant did not even graze
the witness box to tender evidence about any suspicious circumstance.
30.The learned counsel further pointed out the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in (2023) 19 SCC 448, Ashutosh Samanta (Dead) by
Lrs. and others Vs. Ranjan Bala Dasi and Others, wherein, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had placed reliance on an earlier judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in (2021) 16 SCC 543, V.Kalyanaswamy Vs.
L.Bakthavatsalam with respect to proof of a Will within the meaning of Section
69 of the Indian Evidence Act, and had held that what is to be proved is that the
attestation of one of the attesting witness is in his handwriting. He argued that in
the instant case such proof had been established by examination of witnesses,
particularly PW-5 and PW-6. The learned counsel therefore argued that the
judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge should be upheld and the
appeal should be dismissed.
31.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the
material records.
32.The following point arises for consideration
“Whether the registered Will dated 04.02.1985 said to have
been executed by K.Ramanathan had been proved in manner
known to law?”
__________
Page13 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
33.The respondent herein, had initially filed O.P.No.22 of 2015 seeking
Letters of Administration of a registered Will dated 04.02.1985 claimed by him
to have been executed by his father K.Ramanathan who died on 05.11.1996.
The Will had been marked as Ex.P1 during trial. The respondent had impleaded
all the legal representatives of K.Ramanathan as respondents in the Original
Petition. Among them, his mother Sitalakshmi Ramanathan and one of his
sisters, Indira Jayaraman lodged caveat raising objections for grant of Letters of
Administration. The Original Petition was therefore converted as Testamentary
Original Suit and numbered as T.O.S.No.34 of 2015. The respondent was
categorized as the plaintiff and the caveators who raised objections were
categorized as 1st and 2nd respondents.
34.The 1st defendant had filed written statement. In her written statement,
she disputed the genuinety of the Will and also disputed the claim that the
testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of
the Will. She pointed out that the respondent herein, was never in good terms
with the testator. She further pointed out that the 2 nd defendant in the suit, Indira
Jayaraman, had lost her husband and there was no reason why the testator had
not granted her any share in the property. She further stated that there was no
mention about the Will by K.Ramanathan during his lifetime. She further stated
that the respondent herein had obtained a Settlement Deed from her relating to
__________
Page14 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
her share in the property and in the Settlement Deed, it had been covenanted
that K.Ramanathan had died intestate. Pointing out these facts, she had disputed
the claim that K.Ramanathan had executed the Will out of free consent.
35.The 2nd defendant in the suit, had merely adopted the said written
statement.
36.In 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1488, Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead)
and Others Vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by Lrs., the Hon’ble Supreme Court
examined the proof of a registered Will and the burden of the party who
questioned such a registered Will. It had been held as follows:
“9…… The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a
presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court
accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led
before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would
lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who would be
defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not
executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious
circumstances which made the same doubtful. …... ”
__________
Page15 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
37.The dictum laid is of extremely significant so far as the facts of this
case are concerned. Ex.P1 is also a registered Will. It had been attested by two
witnesses. K.S.Padmanabhan and D.Swaminathan. Both the attesting witness
had filed their affidavits as required under Form 56 of the Original Side Rules
as provided under Order XXV Rule 4(d) of the Original Side Rules.
38.It is the very specific case of the respondent herein that one of the two
attesting witnesses D.Swaminathan had died pending the judicial proceedings. It
is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Death
Certificate in that regard, had not been produced. But however, the appellant
herein had not grazed the witness box to question that fact or to tender evidence
about the suspicious circumstances stated in the written statement. It is not in
dispute that D.Swaminathan had actually died.
39.The other attesting witness K.S.Padmanabhan was a senior citizen of
very advanced age. The respondent herein had taken out an application in
A.No.6495 of 2023 to record his evidence through an Advocate Commissioner.
The said application was also allowed. The Advocate Commissioner was also
appointed. But however, the Advocate Commissioner was not able to record the
evidence. She had filed a memo stating that the second attesting witness
K.S.Padmanabhan was aged about 94 years and that his son did not permit her
to record evidence. His son, K.Rangaraj was examined as PW-5. He stated that
__________
Page16 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he saw his father signing the affidavit confirming that he was the attesting
witness. He further stated that a day prior to the date fixed for the recording of
evidence by the Advocate Commissioner, there was a sudden set back in the
health of his father and he was not able to tender evidence. He had therefore
refused permission to examine his father as a witness in that case.
40.With respect to the Will, he identified and confirmed the signature of
his father K.S.Padmanabhan. He also produced a Supplemental Agreement
dated 10.04.1975 executed by his father to exhibit the signature of his father for
the sake of comparison. During his cross examination, he again identified the
signature of his father in the Will.
41.During cross examination, he stated that it was the respondent who
gave instructions to the counsel to prepare his proof affidavit. This aspect was
pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant who stated that the proof
affidavit was therefore not filed voluntarily by the witness. But however, the
witness had been subjected to cross examination and during cross examination
had affirmed the signature of his father. We hold that the evidence of the
witness is credible and there is no reason to reject the same. He had identified
the signatures of his father.
__________
Page17 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
42.The respondent herein had also examined PW-6 R.Venkataraman who
stated that his education fees were paid by the testator K.Ramanathan and he
used to accompany him to the bank and was therefore well acquainted with his
signature. He also identified the signature of the testator K.Ramanathan in
Ex.P1 Will. During cross examination, questions relating to the family of the
testator were asked and he was able to answer all the questions. He was asked
about the deceased brother of the respondent, he was asked about the properties
in Gomal Village. He also stated the educational qualification of the testator
K.Ramanathan. He stated that he came to know about the Will sometime in the
year 1985 and 1986. He withstood cross examination.
43.It is thus seen that the respondent had examined the son of one of the
attesting witness and another witness to speak about the signature of the testator
in the Will. It is to be noted that the other attesting witness had died.
44.Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Section 67 of Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is as follows:
“68.Proof of execution of document required by law to be
attested.- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall
not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been
called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an
__________
Page18 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and
capable of giving evidence:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting
witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will,
which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the
Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by
the person by whom it purports to have been executed is
specifically denied.”
45.Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Section 68 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is as follows:
“69.Proof where no attesting witness found.- If no such attesting
witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been
executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the
attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and
that the signature of the person executing the document is in the
handwriting of that person.”
46.The provisions required that one attesting witness should be examined
and if the attesting witnesses are not available, another witness who is able to
identify the signatures and writings of the attesting witness must be examined.
__________
Page19 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
47.The respondent in the instant case had complied with such condition.
48.We also take judicial notice of the fact that the Will was a registered
Will. This raises a presumption of genuinety of the Will. But however, it should
still be proved. In (2021) 16 SCC 543, V.Kalyanaswamy referred supra it had
been held that in a case covered under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act,
the attestation of the one of the attesting witness in his handwriting must be
proved.
49.In the instant case, the signature of not only the attesting witness but
also of the testator had also been proved. Additionally, the affidavit of the other
attesting witness had also been filed at the time of filing of the Original Petition.
50.All these facts establish that the Will had been duly proved in manner
known to law. Very specifically, the conduct of the appellant in avoiding to
graze the witness box is very significant, as the Will being a registered Will.
Any suspicious circumstance should be dispelled only by the party putting forth
such suspicious circumstance.
51.In the absence of any evidence on the side of the appellant, we hold
that the Will had been duly proved in manner known to law.
__________
Page20 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
52.We also taken the judicial note of the fact that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4
had also affirmed the execution of the Will and had not raised any objections for
grant of Letters of Administration. The statement of PW-4 that the respondent
had offered Rs.50/- lakhs would not imply that K.Ramanathan had not executed
the Will. It would only indicate about the agreement between the two of them
and can never be stretched to indicate that the Will had not been executed by
K.Ramanathan.
53.For all the reasons stated, we answer the point framed that the Will
dated 04.02.1985 had been proved in manner known to law.
54.In view of the above reasons, the judgment and decree of the learned
Single Judge in T.O.S.No.34 of 2014 dated 04.12.2024 is confirmed. The
Original Side Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.)
30-04-2026
smv
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
__________
Page21 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
smv
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
30-04-2026
__________
Page22 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
