Allowed

S. Hariram v. R. Periasamy

Madras HC16 Sept 2014A/5537/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application seeking to implead the applicant, son of the petitioner and grandson of the deceased, as a second petitioner in an original petition under the Administrator-General Act seeking collection of deceased's estate. The Court held him to be a necessary party entitled to share in the property.

What did the court decide?

The application praying to implead the applicant as second petitioner in O.P. No.163 of 2013 was allowed.

S. Hariram Vs R. Periasamy — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

¶5

A. No.5537 of 2014 in

¶6

O.P. No.163 of 2013

¶7

In the matter of the Administrator-General Act 1963 (Act of XXXXV of 1963) and

¶8

In the matter of Estate of the Deceased K.S.Ramasamy

¶9

R.Sivasubramaniyan

¶10

Advocate, S/o. Late K.S.Ramasamy 45, 14th Main Road,

¶11

Anna nagar chennai -40.

¶12

2.S.Hariram

¶13

S/o. R.Sivasubramaniyan 45, 14th Main Road,

¶14

Anna nagar chennai -40. (Impleaded as 2nd Petitioner by the order of this Hon'ble Court Dated 16.09.2014 passed in A.No.5537/14)

¶15

3.A0rulmigu Akkaraipatti Ponkaliamman Arulmigu Akkaraipatti Muthusamy and Arulmigu Molipili Annanar Swami-DEITIES

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Arulmigu Varadharaja Perumal

¶17

Vagaiyara Thirukkoil Devasthanam

¶18

Hindu Religious and Charitable E ndownments Board (HR&CE) Vengumbur – Village Erode T.K.Represented by the Executive Officer R.Chandiran.

¶19

4.Arulmigu Bhagavathy Amman-DIEITY Kalvettuppalayam Vengumbur post Unjalur via Erode district represented by Devotee Mrs.Ramalakshmi. (Impleaded as 3rd and 4th petitioners as per order dated 28/11/17 in A.Nos.4748&4749/17)

¶20

... Petitioners

¶21

Vs.

¶22

1.R.Periasamy S/o. Late K.S.Ramasamy, Main Street Kalvettuppalayam, Vengumbur Post, Unjalur Via, Erode T.K.

¶23

2.G.Guhan

¶24

S/o. Late Dr. Ganapthy Subramanian, 324, Sidharth Natura 40, Vadakkupattu Main Road, Medavakkam, Chennai – 600 100.

¶25

3.Hemalatha Mutukumar Wife of V.Muthukumar, 56, Ramanujam Nagar, Karur – 2.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

4.Karupyammal

¶28

Wife of Late K.S.Ramasamy, 27.A, Main Street, Kalvettuppalayam, Vengumbur Post, Unjalur Via, Erode T.K.

¶29

5.Canara Bank, Thamaripalayam Branch, Karur Erode Road, Thamaripalayam, Erode Taluk Rep. by its Manager 6.State Bank of India, Kodumudi branch, Erode Taluk, Rep. by its Manager

¶30

7.The District Collector, Erode Periyar District Office of the District Collector, Erode-1.

¶31

8.The District Superintendent of Police, Erode Periyar District, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Erode-1.

¶32

.. Respondents

¶33

A.No. 5537 of 2014:-

¶34

S.Hariram S/o. R.Sivasubramaniyan 45, 14th Main Road, Anna Nagar, chennai -40. ..Applicant/Proposed 2nd Petitioner

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

¶37

1.R.Periasamy S/o. Late K.S.Ramasamy, Main Street Kalvettuppalayam, Vengumbur Post, Unjalur Via, Erode T.K.

¶38

2.G.Guhan

¶39

S/o. Late Dr. Ganapthy Subramanian, 324, Sidharth Natura 40, Vadakkupattu Main Road, Medavakkam, Chennai – 600 100.

¶40

3.Hemalatha Mutukumar Wife of V.Muthukumar, 56, Ramanujam Nagar, Karur – 2.

¶41

4.Karupyammal

¶42

Wife of Late K.S.Ramasamy, 27.A, Main Street, Kalvettuppalayam, Vengumbur Post, Unjalur Via, Erode T.K. (Expired on 12.11.2013 & now represented by 1st to 3rd Respondents in their capacity as her L.Rs & Petitioner is also one of the L.R)

¶43

5.Canara Bank, Thamaripalayam Branch, Karur Erode Road, Thamaripalayam, Erode Taluk Rep. by its Manager

¶44

6.State Bank of India,

¶45

Kodumudi branch, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Erode Taluk,

¶46

Rep. by its Manager Kodumudi Branch, Erode Taluk.

¶47

7.The District Collector, Erode Periyar District Office of the District Collector, Erode-1.

¶48

8.The District Superintendent of Police, Erode Periyar District, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Erode-1.

¶49

9.R.Sivasubramaniyan Advocate, S/o. Late K.S.Ramasamy, 45, 14th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40. ..Respondent/Petitioner

¶50

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order

¶51

impleading this applicant as 2nd Petitioner in the present O.P.No. 163 of 2013.

¶52

This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing, the court made the following order:-

¶53

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/proposed party as well as the respondents.

¶54

2.The application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 read with Order I

¶55

Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order to

¶56

implead the applicant as second petitioner in the present Original petition in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶57

O.P.No.163 of 2013

¶58

3.The Original Petition has been filed seeking an order directing the

¶59

Administrator General and Official Trustee (AG & OT) of Tamil Nadu under Section 10 (1) of the Administrators General Act, 1963, to collect and take possession of the assets / estate of the deceased K.S.Ramasamy, situated within the state of Tamil Nadu

¶60

and to hold, deposit and realize, sell or invest the same according to the provisions of the said Act and other consequential reliefs.

¶61

4.It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, R.Sivasubramaniyan, is son of late K.S.Ramasamy and the first respondent, R.Periasamy, is also a son of the late K.S.Ramasamy. The fourth respondent, Karupyammal, is the widow of late K.S.Ramasamy and others are also claiming rights as Class I heirs of the said K.S.Ramasamy. The applicant/proposed party, S.Hariram, who is the son of the Petitioner, has sought an order that he is a necessary party as he is also entitled to share in the property. It cannot be disputed that the applicant is not a necessary party to the proceeding as he is entitled to get share in the property. As the applicant is necessary party, entitled to claim right in the property, this Court is of the view that the application has to be allowed, to meet the ends of justice. It is not the case of the

¶62

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents that the applicant, S.Hariram, is not the grandson of the deceased

¶63

K.S.Ramasamy and allowing the application would not be prejudicial to the rights of

¶64

both the parties in the suit.

¶65

5.On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without prejudice to the claim of

¶66

both the parties, the application is allowed and the applicant/proposed party is permitted to implead as second petitioner in the Original Petition and the petitioner, R.Sivasubramaniyan has no objection to implead him as co-petitioner in the Original

¶67

Petition. Hence, the application is allowed.

¶68

Sd./-TVJ. 16/09/2014

¶69

//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶70

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶71

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶72

EVK 24/02/2022

¶73

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S. Hariram v. R. Periasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Hariram v. R. Periasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Balakrishnan Vs K.Jayalakshmi

N.Hiriyan Vs B.Sivakumar

Novartis Ag, Lichtstrasse Vs Tanmed Pharmaceuticals

Wockhard Limited Vs M/S. Floreat Medica Pvt. Ltd.

Kuppusamy Udayar (Died) Vs E.Ayyasamy Udayar

The Branch Manager Vs Chinnasamy