Partly allowed¶28

C. Ponnusamy v. M. Ramasamy

Madras HC9 Dec 2025CMP/16050/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal representatives — impleadment of heirs of deceased respondent in pending second appeal — doctrine of substantive representation — service on one legal heir sufficient to represent estate — non-service/return of process as 'deceased' excludes unserved heirs — Madras High Court, V. Lakshminarayanan J., 09-12-2025 — CMP No. 16050 of 2023 in SA No. 1685 of 2008 — partly allowed; Registry to amend cause title.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed only in respect of respondents 9 (Rathinam) and 11 (Annakodi), who are recorded as legal representatives of the deceased 6th respondent Subbaraya Gounder in S.A.No.1685 of 2008; Registry directed to carry out necessary amendment; relief refused in respect of respondents 10 and 12 as process returned 'deceased'. ¶28

C. Ponnusamy Vs M. Ramasamy — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 9 to 12 ought to be brought on record and ranked as respondents 9 to 12 in S.A.No.1685 of 2008 as legal representatives of the deceased 6th respondent Subbaraya Gounder. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The application is ordered only insofar as respondents 9 and 11 are concerned (respondents 10 and 12 being excluded as process returned 'deceased').

¶28

Ratio / Principle

In an application filed to bring legal representatives on record, even if only one of the legal heirs is served, the Court can treat the served heirs as representing the estate, applying the doctrine of substantive representation.

¶25

Key takeaways

Respondents 9 and 11 shall be recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased 6th respondent Subbaraya Gounder.ratio¶28
The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in S.A.No.1685 of 2008 to give effect to the recording of the legal representatives.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (V. Lakshminarayanan J.), order dated 09-12-2025 in CMP No. 16050 of 2023 in SA No. 1685 of 2008: Application to bring respondents 9 to 12 on record as legal representatives of the deceased 6th respondent Subbaraya Gounder allowed in part. Held that in an application to bring legal representatives on record, service on even one legal heir suffices — the Court may treat the served heirs as representing the estate under the doctrine of substantive representation. Respondents 9 (Rathinam) and 11 (Annakodi), who were served and neither entered appearance nor opposed, were recorded as legal representatives of the deceased 6th respondent; respondents 10 (S.Thangamuthu) and 12 (Sivakami) were excluded as process returned 'deceased'. Registry directed to carry out necessary amendment in S.A.No.1685 of 2008.

¶1

CMP No. 16050 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

CMP No. 16050 of 2023 IN

¶7

SA NO. 1685 OF 2008

C. Ponnusamy Died

Appellant(s)

M. Ramasamy S/o. Muthusamy, Thandankadu, Moolakarai Village, Erode District

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer : To bring the respondents 9 to 12 on record as the legal representative of the deceased 6^th respondent Subbaraya Gounder and rank them as the respondents 9 to 12 in S.A.No.1685 of 2008.

¶14

For Appellant(s): Mr.Ramanan for Mr.N. Manoharan

¶15

For Respondent:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition has been filed to bring the respondents 9 to 12 on record as

¶18

the legal representative of the deceased 6^th respondent Subbaraya Gounder and

¶19

rank them as the respondents 9 to 12 in S.A.No.1685 of 2008.

¶20

2.Respondents 9 and 11 have been served. Insofar as the respondents 10

¶21

& 12 are concerned, it has been returned as ‘deceased’.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

CMP No. 16050 of 2023

¶24

3.In an application filed to bring on record the legal representative, even

¶25

if one of the legal heirs is served, this Court can treat them as representing the

¶26

estate, applying the doctrine of substantive representation.

¶27

4.Respondents 9 & 11 have not entered appearance through counsel nor are they opposing.

¶28

5.Hence, this application is ordered only insofar as the respondents 9 & 11 are concerned. The respondents 9 & 11 shall be recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased 6^th respondent.

¶29

09-12-2025 (15/22)

¶30

krk NOTE : Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in S.A.No.1685 of 2008. To

¶31

1.M. Ramasamy S/o. Muthusamy, Thandankadu, Moolakarai Village, Erode District

¶32

2.Nallasamy

¶33

S/o. Chinnappa Gounder, Kambar Street, Veerappanchatram, Erode-4

¶34

3.Rajendran