SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

30/01, 10:29] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1752156930750226897?t=X94bZZk7CpK0OkqVNSVCGQ&s=08[30/01, 10:29] sekarreporter1: [30/01, 10:28] sekarreporter1: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALAC.M.A.Nos.1468 and 1469 of 2020andC.M.P.No.10765 of 20201.P.Rajendran2.P.Parthiban3.P.Govindaraj4.P.Sundararajan5.R.Prasanth…Appellant’s in both C.M.A.Nos.Vs.K.R.Govindarajan (died)1.K.R.G.Narayanan….Respondent in both C.MA.Nos.2.Rajasekaran3.Thirunavukkarasu4.Gopal5.Mani6.Natarajan(No notice is necessary as the respondents2 to 6 remained absent and set ex partethroughout and hence notice on respondents2 to 6 may be dispensed with)…Respondents in C.M.A.No.1469 of 2020[30/01, 10:29] sekarreporter1: the present case also, one of the reasons assigned by the Appellate Courtfor rejecting the secondary evidence of the Will dated 01.11.1969, is that signaturesof attestors and attesting evidence do not appear. From the aforesaid Judgment, it isclear that the said reason cannot be a ground for rejecting the secondary evidence.

by ·

[30/01, 10:29] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1752156930750226897?t=X94bZZk7CpK0OkqVNSVCGQ&s=08
[30/01, 10:29] sekarreporter1: [30/01, 10:28] sekarreporter1: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
C.M.A.Nos.1468 and 1469 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.10765 of 2020
1.P.Rajendran
2.P.Parthiban
3.P.Govindaraj
4.P.Sundararajan
5.R.Prasanth
…Appellant’s in both C.M.A.Nos.
Vs.
K.R.Govindarajan (died)
1.K.R.G.Narayanan
….Respondent in both C.MA.Nos.
2.Rajasekaran
3.Thirunavukkarasu
4.Gopal
5.Mani
6.Natarajan
(No notice is necessary as the respondents
2 to 6 remained absent and set ex parte
throughout and hence notice on respondents
2 to 6 may be dispensed with)
…Respondents in C.M.A.No.1469 of 2020
[30/01, 10:29] sekarreporter1: the present case also, one of the reasons assigned by the Appellate Court
for rejecting the secondary evidence of the Will dated 01.11.1969, is that signatures
of attestors and attesting evidence do not appear. From the aforesaid Judgment, it is
clear that the said reason cannot be a ground for rejecting the secondary evidence.

  1. For all the above reasons, I am of the view that the order of remand passed
    by the lower Appellate Court is unsustainable and therefore the same is set aside.I
    would add a note of caution that, if any observations on the merits of the case have
    been made, it is only to test the validity of the order of remand and the same shall not
    affect the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court while deciding the appeal.
    The appeals are therefore allowed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous
    Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs in both the appeals.
    30.06.2023
    dsn
    Speaking Order:Yes/No
    Index:Yes/No
    Neutral Citation:Yes/No

You may also like...