Partly allowed¶47

N.Ganesan, v. The Assistant Director

Madras HC11 Feb 2026WP/17205/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cooperative society attachment; Rule 167 TNCS Rules; Section 90 Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act 1983 award; attachment of shares of non-member legal heirs is excessive; Article 227 Certiorarified Mandamus; Hindu Succession Act Section 8 devolution of 1/3rd shares; alternate remedy Rule 135 TNCS Rules / Section 152 Tribunal appeal raised in counter; Chennimalai Power Loom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sale Society, Erode; Crime No.1/2018 Section 408 IPC; related writs W.P.No.16406 and 16407 of 2018 dismissed; writ petition partly allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Attachment raised (lifted) in respect of the writ petitioners' 2/3rd share in the property; attachment maintained in respect of the 4th respondent's 1/3rd share; no costs awarded. ¶47

N.Ganesan, Vs The Assistant Director — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Attachment raised (lifted) in respect of the writ petitioners' 2/3rd share in the property; attachment maintained in respect of the 4th respondent's 1/3rd share; no costs awarded.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the property of the petitioners' deceased father, including the 2/3rd share devolving on the petitioners, could lawfully be attached in its entirety for the dues of the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent Society. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Persons who are neither members of the respondent Society nor parties to the Section 90 proceedings cannot have their shares attached; attaching their shares is an excessive use of the powers conferred on the Society, and the person answerable for the claim is the 4th respondent.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The impugned attachment is valid only insofar as it relates to the 4th respondent Mr.N.Senthil Kumar's 1/3rd share; it shall stand raised insofar as the 2/3rd share of the writ petitioners is concerned. The plea for quashing the entire attachment was rejected.

¶46

Key takeaways

In the event of sale, an auction purchaser who acquires the 4th respondent's 1/3rd share would have to work out his right by filing a separate suit for partition.obiter¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (V. Lakshminarayanan J.), W.P. No.17205 of 2018, decided 11-02-2026 — Writ under Article 227 for Certiorarified Mandamus against attachment of a property under Rule 167 TNCS Rules pursuant to a Section 90 TNCS Act award (Rs.5,32,19,693.80/- with 12% interest) against the petitioners' brother (4th respondent). The property belonged to the petitioners' deceased father, whose estate devolved on his widow, the petitioners and the 4th respondent in equal shares under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Held: attaching the shares of persons who are neither members of the Society nor parties to the Section 90 proceedings is an excessive exercise of the Society's powers; the attachment is valid only over the 4th respondent's 1/3rd share and stands raised over the petitioners' 2/3rd share; an auction purchaser of the 1/3rd share must work out rights in a separate suit for partition. Writ petition partly allowed; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 17205 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

WP No.17205 of 2018

¶7

N.Ganesan

¶8

M.Chithra

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Assistant Director,

¶12

Handloom and Textiles Office, Bhavani Main Road, Asokapuram, Erode.

¶13

The Sale Officer cum Handloom Inspector, O/o.The Assistant Director, Handloom and Textiles Office, Bhavani Main Road, Asokapuram, Erode

¶14

The President, EH.205,

¶15

Chennimalai Power Loom Weavers Cooperative, Production and Sale Society Ltd., Chennimalai, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District

¶16

N.Senthil Kumar

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

__________ Page1 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 17205 of 2018

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Impugned Attachment order issued by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in CEP No.03/ 2017-18, RC. No. 7434/ 2017/F dated 12.6.2017 and consequential Sale cum Auction Paper Publication Notice issued by the 2nd respondent by dated 8.6.2018 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Venkat For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Tamilvendan, Government Advocate

¶23

Order

¶24

The petitioners are the children of one A.Nachimuthu. The 4^th respondent

¶25

is the sibling of the petitioners. He was working as a Manager / Secretary in the 3^rd respondent Society. During the course of his employment, he is alleged to have caused a loss to the 3^rd respondent to the tune of Rs.5,32,19,693.80/(Rupees Five Crores Thirty Two Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three and Eighty paise only). The Society initiated action against the writ petitioners’ brother. They also lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police, which was taken on file as Crime.No.1/2018 under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

The cause of action for the present writ petition is that the property, which was purchased by the petitioners’ father, Late.A.Nachimuthu, has been attached in its entirety. The petitioners’ father had purchased the property on 04.02.1997. He went to meet his maker on 11.08.2004. At the time of his death,

¶27

Page2 of 7

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 17205 of 2018

¶30

he left behind his wife, the writ petitioners and the 4^th respondent as his legal heirs. Mr.A.Nachimuthu’s wife passed away on 20.07.2015. Therefore, on her death, each of the petitioners and the 4^th respondent became entitled to 1/3rd share by virtue of the operation of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. As the petitioners’ shares are also attached, they are before this Court by way of this writ petition.

¶31

This Court entertained the writ petition and called upon the

¶32

respondents to file a counter affidavit. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed a common counter affidavit. 3^rd respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. The averments are common in both the counter affidavits.

¶33

The gist of the counter is that the petitioners have an alternate remedy

¶34

under Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 and a further provision to appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. It is stated that proceedings were initiated under Section 90 of the TNCS Act in Suit No.01/2017-2018, against the 4^th respondent. Pending the said proceedings, the properties were attached under Rule 167 of the TNCS Rules. The proceedings initiated under Section 90 ended in an award on 11.02.2017. It held that Mr.N.Senthil Kumar is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,32,19,693.80/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The counter states that Mr.N.Senthil Kumar had tendered ‘’no

¶35

Page3 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 17205 of 2018

¶38

objection’’ for the sale of the attached assets. It also points out that the jewellery belonging to Mr.N.Senthil Kumar and his wife have also been attached. The Counter states that Mr.N.Senthil Kumar’s wife had challenged the attachment proceedings in W.P.No.16406 and 16407 of 2018 and the same were dismissed. A faint plea has been raised that A.Nachimuthu is not the owner of the property but Senthilkumar had purchased the property in the name of his father in the year 1997.

¶39

I heard Mr.S.Venkat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Tamilvendan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶40

The narration of the facts shows that the property belongs to one A.Nachimuthu. Of the three children, the 4^th respondent, Mr.N.Senthil Kumar has suffered an award under Section 90. The properties belonging to A.Nachimuthu have been attached by the respondents for the dues which had to be paid by Mr.N.Senthil Kumar. On the death of A.Nachimuthu, the property statutorily devolves on his legal heirs, namely, his wife, the writ petitioners and the 4^th respondent.

¶41

It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are either members of the Society or have suffered an award in Award No.1/2017-2018.

¶42

Page4 of 7

¶43

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

¶44

WP No. 17205 of 2018

¶45

When the petitioners are neither members of the 4^th respondent Society nor parties to the Section 90 proceedings, to attach their shares is excessive use of the powers conferred upon the respondent Society. If at all any one is answerable to the claim, it is the 4^th respondent Mr.Senthil Kumar.

¶46

Though the petitioners seek for the entire attachment to be quashed, I am not inclined to entertain the said plea. The Impugned attachment is valid insofar, as it relates to the 1/3rd share of the Mr.N.Senthil Kumar. It shall stand raised insofar as the 2/3rd share of the writ petitioners are concerned. In case of the sale of the property, the auction purchaser, who will get 1/3rd share of the Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, would have to workout his right by filing a separate suit for partition.

¶47