Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

B. Srinivasan vs None

B. Srinivasan vs NONE

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 19, 2025
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1848265

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CMA/946/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B. Srinivasan

Respondent

NONE

Excerpt

.....by the appellant / petitioner. accordingly, the original petition was dismissed.5. challenging the said order, the appellant preferred this civilmiscellaneous appeal. at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the testator had three daughters, but submitted that the will was executed only in favour of his son. however, as rightly observed by the learned trial judge, all three daughters are necessary parties.6. therefore, the matter is remanded back to the trial court. theimpugned order is confirmed, and the appellant / petitioner is directed to take appropriate steps to implead the daughters as parties. the trial court is directed to proceed with the original petition after the petitioner implead all the remaining legal heirs of basha reddiar, the testator, in accordance with law.7. in view of the above, this civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. there shall be no order as to costs. 19-06-2025 index:yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderinternet:yes neutral citation:yes/no rri to 1.the principal district judge, cuddalore. 2.the section officer, vr section, high court of madras. t.v.thamilselvi. j, rri 19-06-2025

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI B. Srinivasan S/o.Late Basha Reddiar, Door No.52, Middle Street, Kudumiyankuppam Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District Appellant(s) Vs NONE Respondent(s) PRAYER This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 299 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, prayed to set aside the order dt. 20.12.2024 passed in PR.O.P.No.171/2024, by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. For Appellant(s): R.Baskar For Respondent(s):

JUDGEMENT

The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the order dt. 20.12.2024 passed in PR.O.P.No.171/2024, by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

2. Heard Mr. R.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and perused the material available on record.

3. Before the trial Court, the appellant has filed PR.OP.No.171 of 2024

(TN CD 01-009635-2024), seeking probate of the Will said to have been executed by his father on 16.09.2022. He stated that after the demise of his father, the testator, he approached the Court to initiate probate proceedings. He produced the Will, which was marked as Ex.P1, and examined one witness, P.W.2, who is alleged to be one of the attesting witnesses.

4. However, the trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held

that apart from the petitioner, the testator Basha Reddiar had three daughters, who had not been added as parties to the proceedings. The Court held that they are necessary parties to decide the issue of probate claimed by the appellant / petitioner. Accordingly, the Original Petition was dismissed.

5. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred this Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the testator had three daughters, but submitted that the Will was executed only in favour of his son. However, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, all three daughters are necessary parties.

6. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. The

impugned order is confirmed, and the appellant / petitioner is directed to take appropriate steps to implead the daughters as parties. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the Original petition after the petitioner implead all the remaining legal heirs of Basha Reddiar, the testator, in accordance with law.

7. In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 19-06-2025 Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri To 1.The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras. T.V.THAMILSELVI. J, rri 19-06-2025

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial