The appellant No.1, in turn, is married and has two sons.
In this application, a companynter affidavit was filed in which it was clearly stated that the respondent was an outsider to the Wapshare family as she was the daughter of Beatrice and born to a second husband and number Edward Wapshare, who was the brother of Gorden Wapshare, as stated hereinabove.
55 of 1993.
17 of 2005 before the Court of Civil Judge, Nilgiris, which petition was allowed and Succession Certificate dated 16.03.2005 granted to the appellant.
41/97, 42/97 and 86/96 were dismissed as abated.
Since, the 1st respondent in this application being the son of G.O. Wapshare and the 2nd and 3rd respondents being the son of the 1st respondent in this application are the direct heirs of G.O. Wapshare who are alone entitled to inherit the immoveables as well as the moveables of deceased O. Wapshare is companypletely been established by the respondents in this application.
It may be mentioned that this application was dismissed for number prosecution.
Beatrice died on 29.01.1999.
The respondent before us Ms. Shirley Katheleen Wheeler is said to be the daughter of Beatrice, who, as stated herein above, was the wife of Edward Wapshare.
He also had two sisters, one of whom Miss Dorthy Wapshare was unmarried, who is since Signature Not Verified dead and the other Miss Violet Wapshare, who was married and Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2019.03.01 160457 IST Reason has a daughter called Ellen Mary Jackson.
At numberpoint of time did the respondent ever apply as legal heir of Beatrice to be substituted therein.
A revision petition was filed against the said judgment.
The 1st respondent in this application and who in turn given a birth of 2nd and 3rd respondents in this application.
The respondent, in an application filed under Section 383 of the Act dated 28.03.2005, applied to revoke the Succession Certificate so granted.
In the absence of any testament left by G.O. Wapshare the property of G.O. Wapshare will naturally go to his son Joseph Easwaran Wapshare and his sons W.E. Prince Kumar and W.E. Praveen Kumar, only when the petitioner Mary Jackson able to prove that G.O. Wapshare left a will or other testament to inherit the properties left by G.D.Wapshare, claim of the petitioner in this petition will become mischievous as the petitioner in this application herself know that her step sister Ms. Ellen Mary Jacksons claim in the previous suits O.S.No.
The present appeal arises out of a proceeding to revoke a Succession Certificate that was granted in favour of the appellant on 16.03.2005.
It then went on to decide Since the petitioners in O.P. 17/05 are the direct heirs of then deceased G.O. Wapshare neither Ms. Ellen Mary Jackson number her step sister the present petitioner in this application did have any right to question the Succession Certificate obtained by the petitioners in O.P. 17/2005 dated 16.3.2005.
The Sub Court also decided that, in any case, since the previous proceeding had abated, the matter is res judicata between the parties.
Gorden Wapshare died on 18.01.1991.
Apparently, this marriage was fruitless as there was numberissues therefrom.
The appellant No.1 is the son of one Gorden Wapshare.
By the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2015, the Madras High Court allowed the revision on only one point, namely, that the finding of the Sub Judge on res judicata was incorrect.
Gorden Wapshare had a brother called Edward Wapshare, who married one Beatrice.
The evidence adduced on the side of the respondents in this application clearly proves that the deceased G.O. Wapshare during his life time has legally married one Valliammal and had given birth to a male child, who had been named Easwaran.
F. Nariman, J. Nobody appears for the respondent, even though service is companyplete.
Gorden Wapshare was himself married and had two sons one of whom is the appellant No.1, and the other son called Robert Babu Wapshare, who is dead.
Leave granted.
By an order dated 10.04.2006, the Sub Court, Nilgiris, held that the respondent, number being the daughter of Edward Wapshare, was an outsider who companyld number, therefore, maintain the application for revocation.
An application for probate of the will of Gorden Wapshare was moved by Beatrice in 1993, being O.P. No.
As a result, a petition was preferred under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 being O.P. No.
