MUTHUKARUPPAN ALIAS VELAYUTHAM Vs. DEIVATHADIYA PILLAI HEREDITARY TRUSTEE AND POOJARI OF ARULMIGHU SREE VEMBADI SUDALAIMADASAMY SREE PETCHIAMMAN TEMPLE AND SHREE DEIVATHADIYA PILLAI TOMB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.623 of 1996 on the file of Additional District Court, Tuticorin is the revision petitioner. Suit filed by him is one to declare that he is the elder son of 4th defendant and for further declaration that on the death of 4th defendant, he is entitled to act as hereditary trustee. The further relief in the plaint is that defendants 1 to 3 should be restrained from permanent prohibitory injunction and for costs of the suit.

(2.) FOURTH defendant alleged to have filed a memo on 4.10.1996 wherein he has admitted that plaintiff is his elder son. On the basis of memo, an application was filed by plaintiff under O.12, Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure to pronounce judgment on admission. The same was seriously opposed by defendants 1 to 3. First defendant in the suit is the elder son and when 4th defendant died, it is he who performed the last rites and the memo that is filed is collusive and fraudulent.

(3.) EVEN otherwise, petitioner cannot claim as of right that he is entitled to get decree on admission. In State Bank of India v. M/s.Midland Industries State Bank of India v. M/s.Midland Industries State Bank of India v. M/s.Midland Industries , A.I.R. 1988 Del. 153 in para 6 of the judgment. their Lordships held thus: