C.R.P.(MD) No. 887 of 2014 & M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2014. Case: S. Sankara Subramanian Vs S. Krishnaswamy. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | C.R.P.(MD) No. 887 of 2014 & M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S. Palani Velayutham, Adv. and For Respondents: M. Ashok Kumar and N. Rajachandrasekaran, Advs. |
| Judges | V. M. Velumani, J. |
| Issue | Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 213, 213(2) |
| Judgement Date | August 22, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
V. M. Velumani, J.
-
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the petition and order, dated 12.12.2013, made in I.A. No. 149 of 2007 in O.S. No. 31 of 1985, on the file of Sub-Court, Tenkasi.
-
The revision petitioner herein is the third defendant, whereas the first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 5 are the defendants 2 and 4 to 6 in the suit in O.S. No. 31 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Court, Tenkasi. The first respondent filed the suit in O.S. No. 31 of 1985 against the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 5 and their mother Smt. S. Balammal, for partition and separate possession of his 8/49 share in the first schedule property and 1/7 share in the second schedule property. A Memo was filed by all the parties agreeing for partition.
-
A preliminary decree was passed on 29.06.1985 allotting shares to the parties, in which the mother of the parties was allotted 1/49 share in the first schedule property and 1/7 share in the second schedule property. No step was taken for final decree being passed for dividing the properties by metes and bounds and allotment of their respective shares to the parties.
-
Smt. S. Balammal, the mother of the parties herein, died on 04.12.2006. According to the petitioner, during her lifetime, his mother was depending on the first respondent. The first respondent was in the position of dominating their mother and her action. She died intestate and hence, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 149 of 2007, for claiming 49/294 share in the first schedule property and 1/6 share in the second schedule property from the share of his mother from and out of the property allotted to her in the preliminary decree.
-
The first respondent/plaintiff filed counter affidavit stating that no proceeding is pending. O.S. No. 31 of 1985 was filed on the wrong advice to avoid estate duty, which was abolished long back. After the preliminary decree, all the properties were entrusted to the mother of the parties to be dealt by her with power of alienation. She was in good health and sound dispossessing mind. She executed her last Will on 14.02.2001, revoking all her earlier Will. It is a Holograph Will and it reads like a Novel. After the preliminary decree, a family arrangement was arrived at and the suit was abandoned and no further step was taken for 23 years.
-
The fifth respondent/sixth defendant filed counter affidavit made the averments similar to that of the first respondent.
-
...
To continue reading
Request your trial