D MURALI Vs. P SUBASH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the suit have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india against the order of the learned trial Judge in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs in i. A. No.40 of 2007 under Sec.10 CPC to stay all the further proceedings in O. S. No.5399 of 2003 until the disposal of the Application Nos.150 and 151 of 2006 in t. O. S. No.44 of 1994 pending before this Court.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the tenth respondent, who is the purchaser from respondents 1 to 9. It is seen that in I. A. No.40 of 2007 respondents 1 to 9 have remained exparte and the trial Court has rejected the said application. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the the respondents 1 to 9 are the their relatives who sold the suit property based on the order of Probate passed by this court on 19.11.1999 with regard to the alleged Will dated 30.04.1971 said to have been executed by the petitioner's grandfather namely M. Subramania Pillai. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said probate has been got by forging the signature of the first petitioner as if she had signed in consent affidavit in the probate proceedings to which she is not a party. The probate was converted in to a Testamentary Original Suit on objections by one of the sisters namely S. Vasantha who has raised objections about the signature in the consent affidavit which was obtained by way of force.

(3.) It is seen that after converting as Testamentary original Suit, this Court has passed a judgment dated 09.11.1999 wherein this Court has elaborately dealt with the will as well as the case of the said Vasantha that her signature was not obtained by force and come to a conclusion that the execution of the Will has been properly proved and in view of the same, TOS was allowed.