Madras High Court dismisses MGR heirs’ bid to revive decades-old estate dispute

The Madras High Court has rejected an attempt by the legal heirs of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MG Ramachandran’s brother to revive a claim over property forming part of the late actor-politician’s Sathya Gardens estate [MC Ramamurthy Vs M Rajendran].

Justice AD Maria Clete held that the property in question was covered by MGR’s Will of January 18, 1987, which had already been probated by the High Court in 1992. The Court, therefore, found untenable the heirs’ case that MGR had died intestate in respect of the property.

Opening its order with a tribute to MGR, Justice Clete described him as one of Tamil Nadu’s “most distinguished personalities” who held an enduring place in the hearts of millions and dominated cinema and public life for nearly half a century.

“Though he passed away about four decades ago, his name and legacy remain vibrant in public memory.”

The dispute arose from an original petition filed in 2012 by persons claiming through MGR’s brother, MG Chakrapani. They sought Letters of Administration over property at Virugambakkam, contending that it was not covered by MGR’s Will and, consequently, would devolve upon them as his Class II legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act. downloaded downloaded

However, the administrator of MGR’s estate maintained that the property formed part of “Sathya Garden” referred to in the Will and had vested in the MGR School and Home for the Speech and Hearing Impaired Trust. The Court noted that the inventory placed before it specifically referred to Survey No. 255 of Virugambakkam Village, the survey number of the property involved in the present case.

The Court said these materials established that the property had been included in the probated Will and administered as part of MGR’s estate.

“The very foundation of the original petition—that the late Dr M.G. Ramachandran died intestate in respect of the petition-schedule property —is demonstrably untenable," the Court ruled.

It added that so long as the earlier testamentary grant continued to operate, another Letters of Administration proceeding could not be maintained on the footing that MGR had died intestate in respect of the same property.

The Court also expressed serious concern over the manner in which the proceedings had been handled.

After the matter was adjourned on October 31, 2012, it remained completely unlisted until November 29, 2021, a gap of nearly nine years. The record contained no explanation for the inactivity.

“Such unexplained disappearance of case bundles for considerable periods, particularly in testamentary proceedings on the Original Side, is a matter of serious concern and calls for administrative scrutiny," the Court remarked.

The Court added that the litigation showed how its process had been taken for granted and allowed to remain pending indefinitely, partly because of lapses in the functioning of the Registry.

The original petition was eventually dismissed for non-prosecution on February 16, 2022 after the petitioners failed to take steps concerning deceased parties.

Curiously, despite that dismissal, the case was listed again in June 2022 and was purportedly dismissed once more on June 29. The High Court said the second dismissal had no legal consequence since there was no proceeding left to dismiss.

The heirs later sought condonation of a 349-day delay to challenge the June 2022 dismissal, but never challenged the operative February 2022 dismissal. The Court, therefore, held that the applications were misconceived and incapable of being granted any effective relief.

The applicants were represented by advocates M Narayanaswamy, A Veerasamy, B Ram Kumar and K Suresh Babu

The respondent was represented by Advocate C Jagadish

[Read Judgment]