A No. 5970 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA A No. 5970 of 2025 in C.S.No.856 of 2014 1. Ram Priya Dilip W/o.Dilip, Flat No.8, Indira Apartments, 3rd Floor, No.25, Ramanathan Street, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. Applicant(s) Vs 1. Ram Manohari W/o.Rajaram, Flat No.3A, Gee Gee Crescent, 3rd Floor, Door No.114, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084. Respondent(s) PRAYER: Application is filed to summon to Income Tax Officer, None Corporate Ward 10(1) 6th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, Income Tax Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034 or to depute any other person authorised by him to depose evidence and to produce the relevant documents of the deceased Haripriya Rambhadran PAN NO.AABPH4658Q morefully described in the Schedule hereunder in the above C.S.No.856 of 2014. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 5970 of 2025 For Applicant(s): M/S.A. Babu For Respondent: Mr.M.V.Vijaya Baskar ORDER The applicant is the plaintiff who has filed this application to summon the Income Tax Officer, None Corporate Ward 10(1) 6th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, Income Tax Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034 or to depute any other person authorised by him to depose evidence and to produce the relevant documents of the deceased Haripriya Rambhadran PAN NO.AABPH4658Q morefully described in the schedule mentioned property. 2. The suit has been filed for the relief of partition. The applicant / plaintiff has alleged that her deceased mother Haripriya had been in possession of some jewels which has been shown in the schedule ‘B’ of the properties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant / plaintiff that if she have to prove the possession of such movable properties by her deceased mother, it is necessary to summon the Income Tax Officer to whom her deceased mother had filed the Income Tax returns. The respondent / defendant has filed a Testamentary Original Suit in T.O.S.No.66 of 2016 seeking probate of the Will alleged to have been executed by his mother. But, the learned counsel for the applicant / plaintiff submitted that in the Testamentary Original Suit there is no mention about any movable properties and the efforts taken to get the details of the movable properties possessed by the deceased mother has not been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 5970 of 2025 fructified and hence she is compelled to file this application. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent / defendant submitted that the description in the movable properties stated in Schedule ‘B’ is the imagination of the applicant and this application has been filed just to protract the proceedings. He further submitted that in the plaint averments the applicant has not stated that she was not aware of the details of the movable assets of the deceased mother. 4. As the daughter of the deceased Haripriya, the plaintiff could have got the personal knowledge about the jewels possessed by her deceased mother. The respondent / defendant has filed the Testamentary Original Suit on the allegation that the Will has been executed by her mother and she did not die intestate. As the respondent / defendant has got probate in respect of the immovable property for which the Will has been written, the applicant / plaintiff cannot expect him to produce the details of movable properties possessed by her deceased mother. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent / defendant submitted that the deceased did not leave any jewels at the time of her death. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased did not have any jewels, cannot be believed for the very same reason that the deceased had been an income tax assessee and she has been paying income tax for several years. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 5970 of 2025 Even in the absence of the details furnished by the respondent / defendant about the jewels owned by the deceased Haripriya, the plaintiff could have furnished the details of the jewels about which she would have got her own personal knowledge. 6. As the income tax returns will not contain the details as to the type of jewels possessed by the deceased Haripriya, it is an unnecessary exercise to summon the income tax authority as requested by the applicant / plaintiff to appear and produce the documents which relates back to 14 or 15 years. As the likelihood of the plaintiff to get a decree for partition, depends upon the outcome of the Testamentary Original Suit filed by the respondent / defendant and it is possible for the plaintiff to depose evidence as to the jewels possessed by her mother at the time of death even without summoning the income tax authorities, I feel this application is unnecessary and it cannot serve any purpose. 7. In view of the above stated reasons, this application is dismissed. 30-01-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No bkn https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 5970 of 2025 R.N.MANJULA J. bkn A No. 5970 of 2025 In C.S.No.856 of 2014 30-01-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis