G.Anbarasan v. Balamurugan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 10.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 25.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE A.S. No.125 of 2020 1.G.Anbarasan S/o.Govindaraj 2.Bhuvaneswari W/o.Anbarasan Both are residing at 126-44, V.O.C. Street, Chidambaram.

..Appellant(s) Vs Balamurugan S/o.Seetharaman 16, Drowpathyamman Koil Street, Chidambaram.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Appeal suit filed praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 25.07.2019 made in OS no.36/2012 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Chidambaram.

For Appellant(s):

T.Saikrishnan For Respondent(s):

T.Sathiyamoorthy.

1/24

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2019 passed in O.S.No.36 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Chidambaram whereby the declaration of title to the suit property and for recovery of possession was decreed. 2.

For convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3.

Plaintiff's Case is that the suit property is the house property originally belonged to one Mangalathammal, who had purchased it under a sale deed dated 21.08.1954 from Krishnamurthy and Govindammal. According to the plaintiff, Mangalathammal and her husband Pattu Padayachi had no children. Pattu Padayachi predeceased her in the year 1994, and Mangalathammal died intestate on 11.06.1999. On her death, her estate devolved upon her sister Anjalai Ammal. Anjalai Ammal had two daughters, Arumbu and Ranjitham. Ranjitham and her husband ManjiniPadayachi died leaving behind Baskaran and Saravanan. Arumbu instituted O.S.No.201 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chidambaram for a declaration that Arumbu, Baskaran and Saravanan 2/24

were the legal heirs of deceased Anjalai Ammal. A decree was granted on 12.03.2010.

4.

The plaintiff purchased the suit property from Arumbu, Baskaran and Saravanan under the registered sale deed dated 10.01.2011 for a consideration of Rs.18,00,000/-. The plaintiff asserted that after such purchase the municipal records were transferred to his name.On 15.07.2011 the plaintiff issued a legal notice to Chandra, Anbarasan and Bhuvaneshwari calling upon them to vacate and hand over possession. The defendants issued a reply dated 27.07.2011 denying the plaintiff's title and setting up an independent title under an alleged Will dated 30.06.1997 said to have been executed by Mangalathammal in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff denied the truth, validity and attestation of the Will and contended that the settlement deed dated 26.10.2010 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant conveyed no title. Hence filed the suit declaration of title to the suit property and for recovery of possession was decreed. 5.

Defendants' Case :The 1st defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by the 2nd defendant. The defendants denied the plaint allegations and contended that the suit is false, vexatious and not 3/24

maintainable. According to them, the original owner of the suit property was Mangalathammal, whose husband Pattu Padayachi predeceased her in or about 1994. Mangalathammal died issueless on 11.06.1999. It is their specific case that Mangalathammal, while in a sound and disposing state of mind, executed an unregistered Will dated 30.06.1997 in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of her self-acquired property. On her death, the Will came into effect and the 1st defendant became the absolute owner in possession of the suit property.

6.

The defendants further pleaded that the first defendant's grandfather, Balakrishnan, was the paternal uncle's son of Pattu Padayachi. According to them, after the death of Balakrishnan, his wife Thangathammal and his son Govindarasu, who is the father of the first defendant, took shelter in the house of Pattu Padayachi and Mangalathammal. It is their further case that Pattu Padayachi and Mangalathammal treated Govindarasu as their adopted son, and that Govindarasu, along with his family, continued to reside in the suit property. Since Govindarasu had maintained Mangalathammal till her death, she executed the Will in favour of the 1st defendant out of love and affection. Thereafter, the 1st defendant settled the suit property in favour 4/24

of the 2nd defendant under a registered settlement deed dated 26.10.2010, pursuant to which the 2nd defendant became the absolute owner in possession.

7.

The defendants denied the plaintiff's title under the alleged sale deed dated 10.01.2011 executed by Arumbu Ammal and others and contended that the said document does not confer any right or title on the plaintiff. They also denied the plaintiff's claim that the property devolved upon Anjalai Ammal, Arumbu Ammal, Ranjitham and their legal heirs. According to the defendants, the declaration obtained in O.S.No.201 of 2009 is not binding and is a collusive proceeding. They further stated that Chandra is not a tenant but the sister of the 1st defendant residing in the suit house. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.

8.

Issues Framed by the Trial Court:

1.Whether the deceased Mangalathammal executed the Will dated 30.06.1997 in favour of the 1st defendant and based on the Will, whether the 1st defendant is an absolute owner of the property? 2.Whether the settlement deed dated 26.10.2010 is executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant came into force? 5/24

3.Whether the sale deed dated 10.01.2011 executed by the Arumbu Ammal in favour of the plaintiff is a validone ? 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of declaration delivery of possession as prayed for?

5.To what relief the plaintiffis entitled?

9.

On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 Balamurugan and PW2 Arumbu were examined and marked Ex.A.1 to EX.A.17. On the side of the defendants, DW1 Anbarasan and DW2 Nachiyappan, one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.B.2, were examined and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.37 10.

The plaintiff marked Exs.A1 to A17. Ex.A1, which is also marked as Ex.A10, is the certified copy of the decree dated 12.03.2010 in O.S.No.201 of 2009, whereby Arumbu, Baskaran and Saravanan were declared as the legal heirs of Anjalai Ammal. Ex.A2 is the sale deed dated 10.01.2011 executed by Arumbu, Baskaran and Saravanan in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the advocate notice dated 15.07.2011 issued by the plaintiff demanding possession, and Ex.A4 is the reply notice dated 27.07.2011 issued on behalf of the defendants denying the plaintiff's title and setting up an independent claim. Ex.A5 consists of the petition and affidavit in I.A.No.182 of 2013 in O.S.No.122 of 2013. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 21.08.1954 in favour of 6/24

Mangalathammal. Ex.A7 is the mortgage deed dated 20.01.1983 executed by Mangalathammal, while Exs.A8 and A9 are receipts dated 22.01.1987 relating to the mortgage amount. Exs.A11 and A12 are property tax and water tax receipts standing in the name of Mangalathammal, and Exs.A13 to A17 are encumbrance certificates relating to the suit property for the relevant periods from 2009 to 2012.

11.

On the side of the defendants, Exs.B1 to B37 were marked. Ex.B1 is the original sale deed dated 21.08.1954 in favour of Mangalathammal. Ex.B2 is the original unregistered Will dated 30.06.1997 said to have been executed by Mangalathammal in favour of the first defendant. Exs.B3 to B15 are house tax receipts for Door No.44, V.O.C. Street, Chidambaram, mostly standing in the name of Mangalathammal. Exs.B16 to B19 are property tax enhancement, demand and municipal notices. Exs.B20 and B21, dated 15.10.2010, are the proceedings/orders transferring the property tax and water tax assessment in the name of the first defendant. Exs.B22 to B27 are water tax receipts and water supply connection/deposit receipts for the period 2008 to 2011. Exs.B28 and B29 relate to drainage/sewerage estimate and payment receipts. Ex.B30 is the order dated 28.04.2006 in C.M.P.No.1294 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, relating to the registration of 7/24

Mangalathammal's death. Ex.B31 is the municipal late fee receipt dated 10.05.2006, and Ex.B32 is the death certificate of Mangalathammal. Ex.B33 is the licence issued to Govindaraj by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Ex.B34 is the public notice published in Daily Thanthi on 19.02.2010, and Exs.B35 to B37 are ration card copies for the period 1998 to 2009.

12.

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court held that the defendants failed to prove due execution and genuineness of Ex.B2 Will. It noticed, among other circumstances, the discrepancy in the age of Mangalathammal, since the death related documents showed her age as about 85 years whereas the Will described her age as 65 years. The Trial Court further noticed thatEx.B2 contained recitals about Thangathammal being the first wife of Pattu Padayachi and Govindarasu being the son through her, but no independent material was produced to establish the said foundational relationship. The Court also found unexplained corrections/overwriting in the signatures of the attesting witnesses and contradictions between DW1 and DW2 regarding the place and circumstances of execution.

8/24

13.

The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff's case that Arumbu, Baskaran and Saravanan were the persons entitled to convey the property and held Ex.A2 sale deed dated 10.01.2011 valid. It consequently decreed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

14.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree the defendants contend that the plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser for value and that PW2 Arumbu admitted non-payment of consideration. They contend that the suit was not maintainable before the civil court because Ex.A3 notice treated Chandra as a tenant, and therefore the remedy, if any, lay under the rent control law. They contend thatEx.A1 decree in O.S.No.201/2009 was collusive, not binding on them and could not divest title which had already vested in the first defendant. They submit thatEx.B2 Will was proved through DW2, an attesting witness; that the thumb impression of Mangalathammal was not specifically denied; and that the nonexamination of the scribe could not be fatal when an attesting witness was examined. They rely on the custody of Ex.B1 original title deed and the series of municipal tax, water and drainage records marked as Ex.B3 to Ex.B37 as probabilising possession and enjoyment by the defendants and their family. They also contend that, even de hors the Will, the first 9/24

defendant is an heir through the husband's side within the meaning of Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 15.

The Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that a testamentary court is a court of conscience and not a court of suspicion. Reliance was placed on Corra Vedachalam Chetty v. G. Janakiraman, 2001 SCC OnLine Mad 327, to contend that every irregularity cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstance and that the court must not begin with a presumption that a Will is fraudulent. 16.

Reliance was placed on Ved Mitra Verma v. Dharam Deo Verma, (2014) 15 SCC 578, where the supreme court held that for proving a Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, minor discrepancies or errors in the Will would not invalidate the Will, provided the testator's intention and the genuineness of the document could be otherwise established from the surrounding circumstancesThe defendants also relied on N. Kamalam v. Ayyasamy, (2001) 7 SCC 503, for the principle that a scribe is not an attesting witness, and argued that when an attesting witness is examined, non-examination of the scribe is not decisive.The defendants further relied on P. Rukmani v. R. Narayani, 1996 SCC OnLine Mad 260, on maintainability of a civil suit where the dispute is 10/24

truly one between landlord and tenant governed by rent control legislation, and on Omprakash v. Radhacharan, (2009) 15 SCC 66, held that the self-acquired property of the female hindu, devolves upon the heirs of cannot be the husband as per section 15(l)(b). 17.

The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted thatEx.B2 Will was the foundation of the defendants' title, and therefore the entire burden to prove the Will and remove suspicious circumstances lay on the defendants as propounders.Reliance was placed on Dhannulal v. Ganeshram, (2015) 12 SCC 301, for the proposition that execution of a Will is not a mechanical act of putting a signature or thumb impression, but requires intelligent appreciation and acceptance of the contents by the testator.On intestate succession, reliance was placed on Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Muthuvenkatarama Iyengar, (1998) 5 SCC 368, for the principle that heirs in a category under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act are to be ascertained at the time of death of the female Hindu. The respondent submitted that there was no heir under Section 15(1)(a), (b) or (c); hence the property devolved under Section 15(1)(d) upon the heirs of the father, namely Anjalai Ammal and thereafter her branch.

11/24

18.

The plaintiff further submitted that DW1 had admitted the relationship of Anjalai Ammal as sister of Mangalathammal and Arumbu and Ranjitham as daughters of Anjalai, and that admitted facts need not be proved in view of Section 58 of the Evidence Act. 19.

Points for consideration are:

1. Whether the vendors of the plaintiff are the legal heirs of deceased Magalathammal entitled to inherit the suit property?

2. Whether the sale deed, Ex. A2 dated 10.01.2011, standing in the name of the plaintiff, is valid and conveys title to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff?

3. Whether the suit filed for declaration and recovery of possession is maintainable?

4. Whether Ex. B2, the Will dated 30.06.1997, has been duly proved by the defendant?

5. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are liable to be set aside?

Point No.1:

20.

The admitted facts of the case are that the suit schedule property originally belonged to deceased Mangalathammal, who had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 21.08.1954 (Ex. B1). The said 12/24

Mangalathammal was a Hindu and died on 11.06.1999. Her husband, Pattu Padaiyachi, predeceased her in the year 1994. The deceased Mangalathammal had no children. Mangalathammal had a sister, namely Anjali Ammal. The said Anjali Ammal had two daughters, namely Arumbu and Ranjitham. The said Ranjitham died leaving behind two sons, namely Baskaran and Saravanan.

21.

The case of the plaintiff is that, after the intestate demise of Mangalathammal, in the absence of any issue and since her husband had predeceased her, the suit property devolved upon her sister Anjali Ammal and thereafter upon her daughters, Arumbu and Ranjitham. After the demise of Ranjitham, her share devolved upon her two sons, Baskaran and Saravanan. Claiming them to be the successors-in-interest to the suit property, the plaintiff purchased the same from Arumbu, daughter of Anjali Ammal, and from Baskaran and Saravanan, grandsons of Anjali Ammal through her daughter Ranjitham, under Ex.A2 sale deed dated 10.01.2011.

22.

Even if the case of the plaintiff is accepted as such, the plaintiff has no legally sustainable claim. The plaintiff contends that, after the demise of Mangalathammal, the suit property devolved upon her own sister, 13/24

Anjali Ammal. Such contention is legally incorrect. According to the plaintiff himself, the suit property was the self-acquired property of Mangalathammal, purchased by her in her individual capacity. In such circumstances, in the absence of husband and children, the intestate property would devolve upon the heirs of her husband, Pattu Padaiyachi, under Section 15(1)(b) read with Section 16 Rule 1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Under Section 15, the heirs of the husband fall under clause (b), whereas the heirs of the father fall under clause (d). Anjali Ammal, being the sister of Mangalathammal, cannot claim succession in preference to the heirs falling under the earlier entry. Therefore, unless the heirs contemplated under Section 15(1)(b) are exhausted, succession cannot devolve upon persons falling under the subsequent category. Hence, the plaintiff's contention, bypassing the heirs of the husband of deceased Mangalathammal and claiming title through Anjali Ammal, is legally impermissible. Thus, the very foundation of the plaintiff's claim stands demolished.

23.

In the plaint, there are no averments that Pattu Paddaiyachi was the sole son of his parents or that no brother or sister of Pattu Paddaiyachi, or the children of such brother or sister, were in existence at the time of the death of Mangalathammal. In short, there is no pleading in the plaint that, 14/24

at the time of the death of Mangalathammal, no legal heirs existed as contemplated under Section 15(1)(b) and (c) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On the contrary, the plaintiff has directly claimed succession under Section 15(1)(d) of the said Act.

24.

At the time of arguments, the plaintiff contended that, since the defendants had neither claimed that they were the legal heirs of the husband of Mangalathammal nor pleaded the availability of such legal heirs, it should be presumed that no legal heirs of the husband of Mangalathammal were in existence. This contention is untenable. There is neither any averment in the plaint nor any evidence adduced to establish that no such legal heirs existed on the date of the death of Mangalathammal. The plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot take advantage of the weakness, omission, or lapse in the pleadings of the defence.

25.

In the above circumstances, the decision relied upon by the plaintiff in Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Muthuvenkatarama Iyengar, (1998) 5 SCC 368 does not support the case of the plaintiff. 15/24

26.

Further, P.W.2, in her evidence, has stated that her parents had three children, namely, Mangalathammal, the elder daughter, Anjali Ammal, the younger daughter, and one son, Ramalingam. However, the existence of the brother of Mangalathammal has been suppressed in the plaint. Ex. A10 is only a legal heirship declaration relating to Anjali Ammal and not to Mangalathammal. Therefore, the said document is of no assistance in deciding the issue involved herein. In the circumstances, it is held that the vendors of the plaintiff, namely the executants of Ex. A2 sale deed dated 10.01.2011, are not proved to be the legal heirs entitled to inherit the intestate property of deceased Mangalathammal. Accordingly point no. 1 is answered against plaintiff/respondent.

Point No.2:

27.

In view of the findings arrived at under Point No.1, since the vendors of the plaintiff have failed to prove that they succeeded to the estate of deceased Mangalathammal, in the absence of proof regarding non-existence of heirs of the husband of Mangalathammal as contemplated under Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession Act, and having directly claimed succession under Section 15(1)(d), their claim of inheritance cannot be accepted. Further, the suppression of the existence of the brother of Mangalathammal also casts 16/24

serious doubt on the claim of succession put forth by the plaintiff's vendors. Therefore, it is held that the vendors of the plaintiff had not inherited the property of deceased Mangalathammal and consequently, Ex. A2 sale deed dated 10.01.2011 standing in the name of the plaintiff does not convey any valid title to the plaintiff. Accordingly, this point is answered against the plaintiff.

Point No.3:

28.

The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the defendants are in possession of the suit property as tenants. However, from the evidence of P.W.2Arumbu , it is clearly established that the said contention of the plaintiff is wholly false. P.W.2, in her evidence, deposed that Chandra was in possession of the suit property since the property belonged to her grandmother. She further stated that Anbarasan also had a share in the property as the son of her sister, and that the sisters of the first defendant, namely Mani Megalai and Karpagavalli, were residing in and in possession of the suit property until their marriage. Further she deposed that the marriage of Govindarasu and Amsa, parents of 1st defendant was performed by Pattupadayachi and Mangalathammal in the suit property. 17/24

29.

These circumstances clearly demonstrate that the defendants were never tenants in the suit property. On the contrary, the 1st defendant had been in possession of the property from the time of his parents and even during the lifetime of Mangalathammal. Therefore, the plea put forth by the plaintiff that the defendants were tenants under him is wholly unsustainable. If the contention of the plaintiff were true, the plaintiff ought to have initiated appropriate proceedings against the defendants treating them as lessees or tenants. However, there is not even an iota of evidence to prove the alleged tenancy, nor is there any evidence to establish that the defendants had paid rent at any point of time. 30.

The surrounding circumstances further indicate that the plaintiff, in collusion with Prakash, the son of P.W.2, had obtained the sale deed without passing the sale consideration mentioned therein. Significantly, P.W.2 herself admitted in her evidence that no sale consideration had been paid to her by the plaintiff till date. The evidence on record further shows that the plaintiff was fully aware of the long-standing dispute in respect of the suit property and also knew that the original title deeds were in the custody of the defendants. Therefore, it appears that the plaintiff had not purchased the property in the true sense, but had merely purchased a disputed claim. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim to be a bona fide 18/24

purchaser for valuable consideration. The suit filed by him terming the defendant as tenant is not maintainable. Thus this point is answered. Point No.4:

31.

On the side of the defendants, Ex. B2, an unregistered Will dated 30.06.1997 has been relied upon, wherein late Mangalathammal is stated to have bequeathed the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant. The said Will is disputed by the plaintiff. As regards a Will, persons who would be affected by the testamentary disposition, or who would otherwise be entitled to inherit the estate in the absence of the Will, possess a caveatable right to challenge the same. In the present case, as already discussed, the plaintiff has failed to prove his entitlement to claim any right over the suit property through his vendors and, therefore, has failed to establish any caveatable interest so as to challenge the Will. 32.

On the side of the defendants, one of the attesting witnesses was examined as D.W.2 to prove the execution and attestation of the Will. It is deposed by the defendant's witnesses that the other attesting witness had died about two years prior to the evidence. D.W.2, in his evidence, deposed that both himself and the other attesting witness, Namalvar, had 19/24

witnessed Mangalathammal affixing her thumb impression on the Will and that thereafter they affixed their signatures in her presence. 33.

The trial Court observed that there existed discrepancies in the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 regarding the place where the Will was scribed. However, on careful consideration, no material discrepancy is found in this regard. D.W.1 deposed that the Will was written by the scribe Rajamanickam in the house, whereas D.W.2 deposed that it was written in the front portion of the house. Both witnesses consistently deposed that the Will was written in the residence of Mangalathammal. D.W.2 further stated in his cross-examination that the Will was written in the house of Anbarasan situated at Vandikara Street. Though it was stated that Mangalathammal resided at No.44, V.O.C. Street, the evidence on record clarifies that No.44, V.O.C. Street and No.44, Vandikara Street refer to one and the same place. This aspect stood clarified by P.W.

2 in her chief examination, recorded prior to the examination of D.W.2. P.W.2 categorically deposed that Mangalathammal resided at No.44, Vandikara Street along with her husband Pattu and further clarified that Vandikara Street is also known as V.O.C. Street. Hence, no material contradiction exists regarding the place of execution of the Will.

34.

As regards the discrepancy relating to the age of Mangalathammal mentioned in the Will and the death certificate, D.W.1 1st defendant deposed that Mangalathammal died at about 65 years of age and that the age mentioned as 85 years in the death certificate, Ex. B.32, the age mentioned in the will was incorrect. It is seen from the records that the death of Mangalathammal was not registered immediately and that, after lapse of time, a petition had been filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court, pursuant to whose order Ex.B30 dated 28.04.2006 the death came to be registered. The date of death of Mangalathammal is not in dispute and the controversy is confined only to the age mentioned in the death certificate.

When it is an admitted position among the parties concerned that the age of late Mangalathammal mentioned in the death certificate is erroneous, such discrepancy, by itself, cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstance so as to discredit or invalidate the Will, particularly in the absence of any material evidence affecting its due execution or genuineness. The beneficiary under the Will, namely the 1st defendant, is not a stranger to the testatrix. The evidence of P.W.2 itself discloses that he had been residing along with Mangalathammal and her family and also performed funeral ceremonies to Mangalathammal.

appears that though she was not legally married to Pattu, after the death of her husband Balakrishnan, she along with her son, namely the father of the 1st defendant, had taken shelter underpattu Paddayachi and lived under the same roof along with Mangalathammal. As deposed by D.W.1, the testatrix appears to have referred to such relationship in the Will in her own terminology as "first wife." Such description of a non-recognised relationship, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would not affect the genuineness or validity of the Will.

35.

Under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, examination of the scribe is not mandatory when an attesting witness has been examined to prove due execution and attestation of the Will. The necessity to examine the scribe may arise only in the absence of available attesting witnesses. In the present case, D.W.2, one of the attesting witnesses, has been examined and has spoken to the execution and attestation of the Will. Further, it was not even known to the parties whether the scribe was alive at the relevant point of time, and D.W.2 had deposed that the scribe was an aged person and that he was unaware whether he remained alive. 22/24

36.

The Will, Ex. B2, is dated 30.06.1997, whereas D.W.2 came to be examined in February 2019, after the lapse of more than two decades. In such circumstances, minor discrepancies in recollection are natural and human. However, on an overall appreciation of the evidence of D.W.2, the testimony appears cogent and inspires confidence. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the defendants have proved the execution and attestation of Ex. B2 Will in accordance with law.Thus this point is answered.

Point No.5:

37.

In view of the findings arrived at on the foregoing points, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court are set aside and the suit in O.S. No.36 of 2012 stands dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed with costs. Connected civil miscellaneous applications, if any, are closed. 25-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AY 23/24

DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J ay To 1.The II Additional District Court, Chidambaram.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Records, Madras High Court.

PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT A.S. No. 125 of 2020 25.06.2026 24/24