A No. 3003 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE A No. 3003 of 2026 AND CS NO. 553 OF 2011 1. M/s.Pavalai Kalyanasundara Mudaliar Trust, Rep. By Its Managing Trustee Mr.G.Nehruji 2. Mr.G.Nehruji S/o.Late.D.Govindaswamy Mudaliar, Managing Trustee Of Pavalai Kalyanasundara Mudaliar Trust 3. Mrs.B.Chandrakala D1 To D3 Are Residing At No.20/70, Apparswamy Koil Street, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai-19. ..Applicant(s) Vs 1. Arulmigu Sivasubramania Swamy Thirukkoil And 11 Others Thirukkoil, Rep. By Its Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sengaluneer Vinayagar And Kolur Amman Thirukkoil At Mint Street, Chennai-79 2. Mrs.Anitha Bhansali Residing At No.81, Mint Street, Chennai-79. 3. Mr.Gangan M Bhansali Residing At No.81, Mint Street, Chennai-79. 4. Mr.Parasmal Jain Residing At No.8, Narayana Mudali Street, Chennai-79 5. Mr.Kamlesh Kumar Jain Residing At No.8, Narayana Mudali Street, Chennai-79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 3003 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 6. Mr.Bharat Kumar Residing At No.8, Narayana Mudali Street, Chennai-79 7. Mrs.Surekha No.7/22, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Chennai-3. 8. Mr.Sohanlal No.12, Elkandappan Street, Chennai-3. 9. C.Chiranjeev No.19, Karuppannan Street, Chennai-1 10.Ibrahim Shah No.5, Pannaikara Andiappan Street, Seven Wells, Chennai-1. 11.Jitendra Kumar No.80/1, Jarayana Mudali Street, Chennai-79. 12.The Commissioner Corporation Of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai-3. ..Respondents A No. 3003 of 2026 To permit the Applicant to file the listed documents as additional suit documents/ evidence. For Applicant(s): M/s.G.Daisy John For Respondent(s): Mr. S.S.Ramalingam for R1 M/s.A. Prabhakaran for RR2 to 6 Mr.Vikram Jain for RR7 & 8 Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar for R9 Mr. M.A.Abdul Hasan shathali https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 3003 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 ORDER The application in A. No.3003 of 2026 in C.S. No.553 of 2011 has been filed by the 1st defendant seeking leave to mark, as additional documents, twelve documents, namely, the Will executed by Pavalai Kalyanasundara Mudali along with clean copy, dated 09.03.1984; the patta in the name of Annamalai Mudaliar & others, dated 23.04.1986; the Will executed by Poonayagam Parthasarathy Mudaliar along with clean copy and translation, dated 07.02.1888; the Will executed by P.P.Dhatshinamurthy Mudaliar along with Clean copy and translation dated 05.12.1905; the order passed in OP.NO.35 of 1906 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras along with clean copy, dated 10.04.1906; the supplemental deed of trust, registered as Doc.No.4866/2007, on the file of SRO-thiruvottriyur, dated 27.12.2007; the final order passed in OP.No.544 of 2008 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, dated 06.02.2009; the extract from the Permanent Land Register in the name of Pavalai Kalyana sundara Mudaliar Trust for R.S.No.7381, dated 10.09.2009; the name transfer approval from Chennai Corporation in the name of Respondents 2 to 6, dated 13.03.2010; the payment receipt of Chennai Metropolitan water Supply and Sewerage in the name of Respondents 2 to 6, dated 01.06.2010; the planning permit issued in the name of respondents 2 to 6 by the Corporation of Chennai, dated 02.06.2010 and the extract from the permanent land register in the name of C.Chiranjeevi for R.S.No. 7381, dated 26.04.2011. The affidavit filed in support of the application itself states that what is sought to be produced are only Xerox copies of those documents. 2. The averments in support of the application are that certain material documents relating to title including Wills, patta and the order passedin OP.No. 35 of 1906, could not be filed earlier as the original were not available and therefore, permission is sought to file the said additional documents , the defendants seek permission to file the said Xerox copies as additional documents. . https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 3003 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 3. This Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought. What is admittedly sought to be received are only Xerox copies. In the absence of a proper case made out for reception of secondary evidence, Xerox copies cannot be received as additional documents merely on request. The affidavit does not set out the necessary particulars for bringing the case within section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. A mere Xerox copy of a document cannot be admitted as secondary evidence in the absence of foundational proof satisfying Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. [H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240] Therefore, the prayer to receive the said xerox copies as additional documents cannot be entertained. 4. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. No costs. 23-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JRS https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 3003 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. JRS A No. 3003 of 2026 AND CS NO. 553 OF 2011 23-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis