Madras High Court
OSA/115/2026 of S.Jothilakshmi Vs K.S.Agelndeswari on 7 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 115 of 2026 and CMP.No.16197 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010719892026}
S.Jothilakshmi
W/o. M.Siva Prakasam,
Old No.22, New No.48,
Chakarapani Street Extn,
West Mambalam,
Chennai 600 033.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. K.S.Agelndeswari
D/o.Ramalingam and Tamilselvi,
W/o Keerthiga Selvam,
Residing at No.163,
S and P Residency,
2nd Main Road,
Rajankuppam,
Maduravoyal,
Chennai 600 095.
2. S.Parvathy
D/o. M.Siva Prakasam,
Old No.22, New No.48,
Chakarapani Street Extn,
West Mambalam,
Chennai 600 033.
3. S.Thiagarajan
S/o.Siva Prakasam,
Old No.22, New No.48,
Chakarapani Street Extn,
West Mambalam,
Chennai 600 033.
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Ac to set aside the Order dated 09.04.2025 passed in A.No.684 of 2025 in OP.No.635 of 2024 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Madras and recall the order for converting the Original Petition into Testamentary Original Suit..
For Appellant(s):
Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham
For Respondent(s):
Mr.B.Balaji for R1
No appearance for R2 & R3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Challenge has been made to the order of the learned Single Judge, wherein, the learned Single Judge has converted the Original Petition to Testamentary Original Suit based on the caveat filed by the third parties. The same has been challenged on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not decided whether the first respondent has caveatable interest.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first respondent is a stranger and has no right whatsoever.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials place on record.
4. Caveat has been filed by the first respondent under Order XXV Rule 51 of Rules of the High Court, Madras, Original Side, 1994. Though much emphasis has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the affidavit has not been filed as per Order XXV Rule 52 of Rules of the High Court, Madras, Original Side, 1994, on perusal of the case files, we find that affidavit has been filed by the respondent. However, now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that same has not been served on the appellant by the respondent. The learned counsel for the first respondent has also placed on materials to show that registered post has been sent to the appellant.
5. Be that as it may, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has no caveatable interest, whereas, affidavit filed by the first respondent clearly indicate that she claims right as an adoptive daughter and certain documents have been placed to show that even from the school records, her father is shown as her adoptive parent, apart from other documents. This Court is of the view that all these facts has to be established in evidence.
6. Merely because the learned Single Judge has not given a separate finding that whether the first respondent has right in the property or not, in our view the same does not assume importance since the learned Single Judge has already treated the original petition as testamentary suit, therefore, still the appellant can establish that the first respondent has no right over the property in trial. Ultimately, the rights of the parties have to be established by proper evidence in adjudicatory manner, therefore, merely based on an application, rights of the parties cannot be decided. Further, we are of the view that merely because the learned Single Judge has not given reasons as to whether the respondent has caveatable interest or not, that will not have any impact in deciding the rights of the parties in a full fledged trial.
7. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The parties are at liberty to raise all their grounds in the testamentary suit and establish their rights.
8. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of. No costs. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. dhk OSA No. 115 of 2026 07-10-2026