Skip to content


S. Vivekanandan (deceased) and Others Vs. M.J. Umapathy and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberApplication No. 5212 of 2016 in TOS No. 87 of 2013
Judge
AppellantS. Vivekanandan (deceased) and Others
RespondentM.J. Umapathy and Another
Excerpt:
.....in the will and that there is a valid dispute with respect to the lay out and the extent of the suit property. the certified copies of the documents, now sought to be produced, are said to be connected with the will, which would enable the court to identify the suit property. 4. the respondents/plaintiffs while resisting the application, contended that the production of the title deed is unnecessary and irrelevant to the present proceedings. he would further state that when the challenge is made only to prove the will, the identification of the property is not required. 5. heard both sides. 6. when the suit has been filed for the issuance of the letters of administration with respect to the will filed, the testamentary court has to only look into the validity of the will and the mode.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to receive three documents more fully described in the schedule appended to the Judges Summons, as additional documents.)

1. This application has been filed by the applicants/defendants 2 and 3 seeking to receive the three documents more fully described in the schedule appended to the Judges Summons, as additional documents.

2. The suit is one for issuance of Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 14.06.1995 and that the trial is in progress.

3. It is stated by the applicants/defendants 2 and 3, that the respondents/plaintiffs had not produced the original title deed relating to the property mentioned in the Will and that there is a valid dispute with respect to the lay out and the extent of the suit property. The certified copies of the documents, now sought to be produced, are said to be connected with the Will, which would enable the Court to identify the suit property.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs while resisting the application, contended that the production of the title deed is unnecessary and irrelevant to the present proceedings. He would further state that when the challenge is made only to prove the Will, the identification of the property is not required.

5. Heard both sides.

6. When the suit has been filed for the issuance of the Letters of Administration with respect to the Will filed, the testamentary Court has to only look into the validity of the Will and the mode of proving the same. The right to title or identity of the property are totally irrelevant in the present context.

7. In view of the above, the application filed by the applicants/defendants 2 and 3 is not maintainable and that too, after the commencement of the trial.

8. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //