CRP/1474/2024 of S. RAJESH Vs Manorama Banerjee (Died) 1.B.Vijayraj Theodore Pre on 14 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.4974 of 2021 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the application filed by petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC to summon the bank documents pertaining to the testatrix Jebamani Ammakannu from the Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Nagar East Branch, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.4974 of 2021 seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 1/6th share in the suit property. The defendants filed a written statement and took a stand that Jebamani Ammakannu, who is the grandmother of the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3, had executed a Will on 20.10.1994 and bequeathed the property in favour of the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3. Therefore, they denied partition and share sought for by respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs.

4. The suit reached the stage of trial and the Will dated 20.10.1994 was marked as Ex.D6. There were two attesting witnesses to this Will and one of the attesting witness was identified as Mr.V.K.Durai, who died on 08.04.1996 and the death certificate was marked as Ex.D7. Insofar as the other attesting witness is concerned, the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 took a stand that the signature is not decipherable and hence, they are not in a position to identify and locate the said attesting witness. Thus, they took a stand that they are not in a position to examine the attesting witness in this case. In the mean time, the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs were disputing the Will as a forged and fabricated document and were questioning the signature of the testatrix. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.4974 of 2021 to issue summons to the Branch Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Nagar East branch, to produce the specimen signature and all the documents carrying the signature of the deceased Jebamani Ammakannu to enable the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 to prove that the signature found in the Will is that of the said Jebamani Ammakannu.

5. The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 will have to prove the Will under Section 68 or 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore, there is no question of summoning for documents as sought for by the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

6. The specific case of the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 is that the first attesting witness died and the second attesting witness cannot be identified and is not known. Hence, the only option available to the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 is to prove the Will in accordance with Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In such a scenario, the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 will have to prove the signature of the person, who executed the document and also the signature of one of the attesting witness. Since the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs are questioning the genuineness of the Will, the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 want to summon the relevant documents from the bank, which contain the signature of the deceased Jebamani Ammakannu.

7. In the considered view of this Court, as a first step, the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 will have to examine a witness to identify the signature of the testatrix in the Will and prove that the signature found therein is in the handwriting of the testatrix. That apart, the signature of one of the attesting witness must also be proved in the same manner. If ultimately, the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 are able to get a witness, who can identify the signature of the deceased in the Will, that will fulfil the mandate under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. To a great extent, it will also strengthen the case of the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 to substantiate that Will was, in fact, signed by the testatrix viz., Jebamani Ammakannu. Ultimately, while proving the Will, the burden of proof is upon the person, who relies upon the Will, not only to prove the Will but also to dispel all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. If a witness effectively is able to identify the signature of the testatrix in the Will, to a great extent, that will substantiate the stand taken by the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 that the Will has in fact been executed by the testatrix. If the same is done, the blame cannot be put against the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 on the ground that apart from identifying the signature, they did not take any steps to prove the signature of the testatrix. If that is the apprehension in the mind of the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3, the above observation will sufficiently take care of the interest of the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3. In short, the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 will have to prove the Will in accordance with Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the onus of proof will keep shifting like a pendulum depending on what ultimately comes out in the evidence. Thereafter, the Court below has to proceed further to decide the main suit on appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary let in by both sides.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is sustained and this civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. Civil Revision Petition No.1474 of 2024