Allowed

Thulasiammal v. Indirani

Madras HC3 Jun 2026CMP/774/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a civil miscellaneous petition to bring in the legal heirs of a deceased second respondent as parties. The court held that notice to these new applicants was not required as their mother, the first respondent, was already on record contesting the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed. Legal heirs of deceased second respondent recorded as respondents. Registry directed to amend appeal and list matter.

Thulasiammal Vs Indirani — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

¶2

CMP.No.774 of 2023 in

¶3

S.A.No.1596 of 1996

¶4

1.Thulasiammal (died)

¶5

2.K.T.Thulasiram (died)

¶6

3.T.Nagendran S/o.Late.M.R.Thulasiram 32-A, Shankar Nagar Salem-7.

¶7

4.K.T.Rangachari S/o.K.T.Thulasiram 29/21, Old Market Street Fort, Salem-1.

¶8

5.K.T.Ragunath S/o.K.T.Thulasiram 29/21, Old Market Street Fort, Salem-1.

¶9

6.K.T.Krishnamoorthy S/o.K.T.Thulasiram 29/21, Old Market Street Fort, Salem-1.

¶10

7.N.G.Lalitha W/o.Govindarajan 29/21, Old Market Street Fort, Salem-1.

¶11

….Petitioners/Appellants 3 to 7

¶12

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

¶13

Versus

¶14

1.Indirani W/o.Ethiraj 103-A, R.D. Paul Street Arisipalayam Salem-9. 2.S.G.Ethiraj (Died) S/o.Govindaraj 103-A, R.D. Paul Street Arisipalayam Salem-9. ….Respondents 1&2/Respondents 1&2

¶15

3.E.Ravindranath Tagore, S/o.Late. S.G.Ethiraj 103-A, R.D. Paul Street Arisipalayam Salem-9. 4.E.Ramamoorthy S/o.Late.S.G.Ethiraj 103-A, R.D. Paul Street Arisipalayam Salem-9.

¶16

5.E.Ramadevi D/o.Late.S.G.Ethiraj 103-A, R.D. Paul Street Arisipalayam Salem-9. ...Proposed respondents 3 to 5/ LRs of the deceased 2^nd Respondent

¶17

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XXII Rule 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to bring on the LR’s of deceased 2^nd Respondent Ethiraj as Respondents 3 to 5 and record herein 3 to 5 respondents, namely, E.Ravindranath Tagore, E.Ramamoorthy, E.Ramadevi as legal heirs of the deceased S.G.Ethiraj in the above Second Appeal.

¶18

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

¶19

For Appellants : Ms.P.Vidhya Shree For Ms.P.T.Ramadevi For Respondents : Mr.J.Sairam Mr.P.Jagadeesan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Ms.P.Vidhya Shree, representing Ms.P.T.Ramadevi, Counsel on record for

¶22

the Petitioners and Mr.J.Sairam, representing Mr.P.Jagadeesan, Counsel on record for the Respondent No.1 are before the Court.

¶23

Mr.J.Sairam, representing Mr.P.Jagadeesan, Counsel on record for the Respondent No.1 in the main appeal takes notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

¶24

3.Heard both sides.

¶25

4.This Court has perused the affidavit filed in support of this petition.

¶26

5.The Respondent No.2 in the main appeal, namely, S.G.Ethiraj, passed

¶27

away on July 3, 2022 leaving behind his wife, namely, Indirani (Respondent No.1) and two sons, namely, E.Ravindranath Tagore, E.Ramamoorthy and one daughter, namely, E.Ramadevi, as his legal heirs/legal representatives.

¶28

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

¶29

6.Notice sent to the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 returned with a postal

¶30

endorsement as “No Such Person”.

¶31

7.Considering the nature of the petition, this Court is of the view that no notice is required for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5. Since the first respondent who is the mother of the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 is already on record and contesting the Second Appeal. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

¶32

8.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Considering

¶33

the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

03.06.2026

¶35

MSM

¶36

Note: Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the main Second Appeal No.1596 of 1996 and list the matter on June 10, 2026 .

¶37

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

¶38

R.SAKTHIVEL, J

¶39

MSM

¶40

CMP.No.774 of 2023 in S.A.No.1596 of 1996

¶41

03.06.2026

¶42

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

Thulasiammal v. Indirani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thulasiammal v. Indirani

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

Senrayan (Died) 1. a.Chellammal, Vs Kuppusamy (Died) 1. P.Suresh alias Manikandan

Senrayan (Died),1. a.Chellammal Vs Kuppusamy (Died), 1.P.SURESH Alias Manikandan

A.Elumalai Vs K.Sahadevan

Karunanidhi (Died), 1.Govindan Vs Thamizharasi

Asothai Vs Kesavan

Kamalammal Vs Kaliyan