K CHANDRASEKARA RAO Vs. C MASILAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S.A.No.125 of 2008:

(2.) THE Learned Single Judge, while passing the Common Judgment in C.S.No.980 of 1999 and T.O.S.No.32 of 2000, on 26.04.2005, has, among other things, observed that 'the Ex.P.1-Will dated 03.11.1986 executed by Ramalakshmi Ammal is a true, genuine and valid one and has come to the conclusion that Defendants 5 to 7 have purchased the property when probate was in force for valuable consideration and that they are bona fide purchasers and that revocation of the probate subsequently would not operate as a bar for the title to the property and held that Defendants 5 to 7 cannot be ordered to redeliver the possession of the property to the Appellants/ Plaintiffs.' Also, in regard to the issue "whether notice to the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Board is necessary", the Learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that "as per the Will, the 4th Defendant was made as a legatee of the Will, who is entitled to the suit property and in view of the findings that as per the Will, the 4th Defendant has become the absolute owner of the suit property and not the Mutt" and ultimately found that notice to the H.R. and C.E. Department is an unnecessary one and consequently, dismissed the suit C.S.No.980 of 1999 with costs and ordered for the issuance of Probate in T.O.S.No.32 of 2000 (O.P.No.135 of 1987).

(3.) THE Written Statement of the 4th Respondent/4th Defendant: