Partly allowed

Estate of K.S.Ramasamy v. R.Periasamy

Madras HC2 Jul 2019OP/163/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a grandson has no right by birth to property allotted to a grandfather via partition from the grandfather's sons. Consequently, the second petitioner was struck off as not being a necessary or proper party to the original petition under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

What did the court decide?

Second petitioner struck off from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC; counsel precluded from submitting subsequent arguments.

Estate of K.S.Ramasamy Vs R.Periasamy — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF JUNE, 2019 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶4

O.P.No.163 of 2013

¶5

In the matter of Administrator-General Act, 1963 (Act of XXXXV of 1963) and In the Matter of Estate of the Deceased K.S.Ramasamy. 1.R.Sivasubramaniyan, Advocate, S/o. Late K.S.Ramasamy, 45, 14th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040. (*) 2.S.Hariram, ()* S/o.R.Sivasubramaniyan, 45, 14th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.

¶6

(*) Impleaded as 2nd Petitioner of the Order of this Hon'ble Court dated 16.09.2014 passed in A.No.5537/2014)

¶7

() The 2nd Petitioner is struck off as per Order dated 12.06.2019 in O.P.No.163 of 2013.*

¶8

( ****)** 3.Arulmigu Akkaraipatti Ponkaliamman, Arulmigu Akkaraipatti Muthusamy and Arulmigu Molipili Annamar Swami Deities Arulmigu Varadharaja Perumal Vagaiyara Thirukkoil Devasthanam, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board(HR & CE), Vengumbur Village, Erode Taluk. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Represented by The Executive Officer, R.Chandiran.

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

()** 4.Arulmigu Bhagavathy Amman - Diety, Kalvettuppalayam Village, Vengumbur Post, Unjalur Via, Erode District, Represented by Devotee, Mrs.S.Ramalakshmi. ..Petitioners

¶12

() Impleaded as 3rd and 4th Petitioners as per Order dated 28.11.2017 in A.Nos.4749 and 4748 of 2017.**

¶13

Vs. 1.R.Periasamy, S/o.Late K.S.Ramasamy, Main Street, Kalvettuppalayam, Vengumbur Post, Unjalur Via, Erode T.K. 2.G.Guhan, S/o.Late Dr.Ganapathy Subramanian, 324, Sidharth Natura, 40, Vadakkupattu Main road, Medavakkam, Chennai - 600 100. 3.Mrs.Hemalatha Mutukumar, W/o. V.Muthukumar, 56, Ramanujam Nagar, Karur - 2. 4.Mrs.Karupyammal, W/o.Late K.S.Ramasamy, 27.A, Main Street, Kalvettuppalayam, Vengumbur Post, Unjalur Via, Erode T.K. 5.Canara Bank, Thamaripalayam Branch, Karur-Erode Road, Thamaripalayam, Erode T.K., Represented by its

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

6.State Bank of India, Kodumudi Branch, Erode T.K., Represented by its Manager.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Original Petition praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct The Administrator-General of Tamil Nadu under Section 10(1) of the Administrators General Act, 1963 to collect and take possession of the assets of the estate of K.S.Ramasamy (since deceased) situated within the State of Tamil Nadu and to hold, deposit and realize, sell or invest the same according to the provisions of the said Act and with the further direction under Section 10(2) of the Act to file and prosecute such suits or take such proceedings as the Administrator-General may deem appropriate for the recovery of any assets, bank deposits, money, movable or immovable of the estate of the deceased.

¶20

This Original Petition coming on this day before this Court for hearing, the Court made the following order:-

¶21

Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the second petitioner would submit that he has a right to argue. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

2. The property that is involved in this Original Petition is the property that was allotted to Ramasamy Gounder at a partition, that had taken place between him and his sons namely, the first petitioner and the first respondent. Therefore, the property in the hands of Ramasamy Gounder is

¶25

the self acquired property and it devolves under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and not by survivorship under Section

¶26

6 of the said Act. This position of law has been explained by

¶27

a Full Bench of this Court in The Additional Commissioner

¶28

Income Tax v. P.L.Karuppan Chettiar, reported in AIR 1979 Mad (1) . The said judgment of the Full Bench of this Court has

¶29

been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The

¶30

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen, reported in 1986 (3) SCC 567.

¶31

As per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this

¶32

Court, approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court a Son’s Son does not get a right by birth to the property which was allotted to

¶33

the grandfather at a partition that had taken place between his father and his grandfather. Therefore the second

¶34

petitioner has no right over the property particularly during the lifetime of the first petitioner.

¶35

Hence I find that the second petitioner is neither a

¶36

necessary nor a proper party to this petition, since he has no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

right in presenting over the property. In view of the Law

¶38

¶39

declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the name of the second petitioner, who has been improperly joined in the petition is struck off from the array of parties invoking the power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel is precluded from

¶40

advancing arguments as the counsel for the second petitioner.
Sd/-R.S.M.J
12/06/2019
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
jj 30/07/2019
From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.

¶41

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

Estate of K.S.Ramasamy v. R.Periasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Estate of K.S.Ramasamy v. R.Periasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Senthilkumar Vs T.Thilagam @ Yuktha

Mrs.Jaya Prem Mirpuri Vs Deepak Muralidhar Mirpuri

Mrs.Roselin Vs No Respondent

Will of K.Shanmugam Vs Joany Banian Joseph

Will(2) of Joseph Durai Raj Vs Mr.Suresh David Raj

Suganthi Selvarani Vs No Respondent