Madras High Court
T.A.Sasikala vs The Chief Manager on 4 January, 2022
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.13249 of 2020
1.T.A.Sasikala
2.T.A.Lalitha
3.A.Ananthalakshmi
4.A.Anand .. Appellants
Vs
1.The Chief Manager,
Indian Bank,
Corporate Office,
P.B.No.5555, No.254-260,
Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 14.
2.The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank,
Chetpet Branch, Chennai.
3.The Indian Overseas Bank,
Rep. By its General Manager,
Zonal Officer,
IOB Central Office Building,
3rd Floor, No.763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
4.The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Kilpauk Branch, Chennai – 10.
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
5.UCO Bank,
Rep., by its General Manager,
Zonal Office,
No.328, Thambuchetty Street,
Chennai – 1.
6.The Branch Manager,
UCO Bank,
Chetpet Branch,
779, Poonamalee High Road,
Chennai.
7.ICICI Bank,
Neyveli Branch,
Rep. By its General Manager,
5/5 Main Bazaar Street,
Neyveli Township, Neyveli – 3.
8.The Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep. By its Branch Manager,
Dr.Ambedkar Road,
Neyveli – 607 803.
9.M/s NLC TN Power Limited,
(A Subsidiary company of NLC India Limited)
A Government of India Enterprises,
AJV between NLC India Limited and TANGEDCO
Harbour Estate, Tuticorin 628 004.
10.The General Manager (HR),
M/s. NLC TN Power Limited,
(A Subsidiary company of NLC India Limited)
A Government of India Enterprises,
AJV between NLC India Limited and TANGEDCO
Harbour Estate, Tuticorin 628 004.
11.The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Near Lotus Tank,
New No.5, Old No.1A (IInd Floor)
Lady Doak College Road,
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
Chinnachokkikulam,
Madurai – 625 002.
12.T.A.Malligabai
13.T.A.Padmagandhi
14.T.A.Premakumari .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules
read with Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the fair and decreetal order in
O.A.No.723 of 2019 in C.S.No.4559 of 2019 dated 06.08.2020.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.Sharath Chandran
for R12 and R14
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 06 August
2020 recorded on O.A.No.723 of 2019 in C.S.No.4559 of 2019. This
appeal is by the original plaintiffs.
2. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the
impugned order is erroneous since Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 are not properly considered and error of law has
crept up. It is also submitted that while deciding the injunction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
application, any final pronouncement should not have been made and
further that the impugned order travels to that extent where the case
of the plaintiffs atleast plaintiffs 3 and 4 would be prejudiced even
during the course of trial. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the
Supreme Court of India in Babu Lal and Others Vs. M/s.Vijay Solvex
Limited and Others ((2014) 16 SCC 680) to contend that at the interim
stage, no declaration should be made which may prejudice the case. It
is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the contesting
respondents i.e. original defendants 12 and 14 has submitted that the
learned single Judge can not be said to have fallen in any error while
recording the impugned order dated 06.08.2020 which may call for
any interference. It is submitted that para 11 of the impugned order is
only the consequence of the true reading and interpretation of Sections
8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore the same
may not be interfered with. So far other consequences of the
impugned order is concerned, it is even conceded on behalf of these
two defendants that the estate of the deceased brother are to be
shared by five surviving sisters, two being plaintiffs and three being
defendants. So far these two defendants i.e. defendants 12 and 14 (2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
out of 5 sisters) are concerned, there is no contest and appropriate
order can be passed by the Court even treating it to be final order. It is
submitted that no interference be made by this Court and even further
order may be passed considering this concession.
4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that one
Mr.T.P.Authi Raj had six daughters and one son viz., T.A.Balaji. The
point at issue is not the estate of Authi Raj, who died intestate. The
point at issue is the estate of Balaji. Balaji had six sisters. Out of these
six sisters, one sister had predeceased him. Five surviving sisters are
there. Out of these five surviving sisters, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the two
sisters, defendants 12, 13 and 14 are remaining three sisters. Plaintiffs
3 and 4 are the children of predeceased sister. The suit is for the
following reliefs:
“(a) To declare that the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants 12 to 14 are entitled to share the
benefits payable on the death of T.A.Balaji lying
with Defendants 1 to 11;
(b) To declare that the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are
entitled to 1/6 share each, Plaintiffs 3 and 4
together entitled to 1/6th share and the Defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
12,13 and 14 each entitled to 1/6th share in the
amount payable on the death of T.A.Balaji and
lying with Defendants 1 to 11;
(c)To grant an order of permanent injunction
restraining the Defendants 1 to 11 from disbursing
the amount lying with them and payable on the
death of T.A.Balaji, excluding the Plaintiffs;
(d) to direct the Defendants to pay the cost of this
Suit; and
(e) and pass such further or other orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”
5. The issue is in very narrow compass, as to whether the estate
of Late Balaji was to be shared by six sisters and their next generation
or amongst five surviving sisters. This is a point at issue, which,
considering the plaint as it stands now, is to be tried by the learned
single Judge.
6. The entitlement of plaintiffs 3 and 4 is examined by learned
single Judge keeping in view the relevant provisions of Sections 8 and
9 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Specific reference is made to these
provisions in para 9 and 10 of the impugned order which we have
taken note of. On conjoint consideration of the said provisions, learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
single Judge arrived at the conclusion as noted in para 11 which reads
as under:
“11..........Therefore, on a reading of Section 9 it is
clearly evident that applicants 3 and 4 do not
succeed to the estate of the late T.A.Balaji.
Therefore, the applicants 1 and 2 and respondents
12 to 14 are alone entitled to the share in the
estate of late T.A.Balaji in the hands of the
respondents 1 to 11 each being entitled to a 1/5th
share....”
(emphasis supplied)
7. True it is that the said finding would prejudice plaintiffs 3 and
4 but there can not be any half way pronouncement in this regard. The
reading of Sections 8 and 9 leads to this consequence only. Learned
single Judge, while deciding the application before him was required to
express opinion on this fact. Even if it has consequence inconvenient
to any party that itself will not be a ground to come to the conclusion
that it ought not to have been declared by learned single Judge. We do
not find any infirmity either in law or in fact in this regard. Therefore,
no interference is required.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
8. So far other consequences are concerned, as conceded by the
learned advocate for defendants Nos. 12 and 14, there is no contest
that all five sisters are entitled to the estate of deceased brother which
would come to 1/5 share. Therefore, we arrive at the conclusion that
so far exclusion of plaintiffs 3 and 4 as declared by learned single
Judge is concerned, the same can not be said to be erroneous in any
manner. So far the claim of rest of the parties are concerned, there is
no contest amongst them whether they stand as plaintiff or as
defendant. Suffice it to note no interference is required so far this
appeal is concerned. The parties may proceed with the litigation if
anything is left to be decided or adjudicated among themselves.
9. So far the reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India (cited supra) is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with
regard to the proposition of law therein. However, as noted in the said
judgment suit was held to be not maintainable, while in the case on
hand only the rights of the parties under Sections 8 and 9 are
considered and therefore the said judgment will not help the
appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
10. This appeal is dismissed with above observations. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
04.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
mmi/40
To
1.The Chief Manager,
Indian Bank,
Corporate Office,
P.B.No.5555, No.254-260,
Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 14.
2.The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank,
Chetpet Branch, Chennai.
3.The Indian Overseas Bank,
Rep. By its General Manager,
Zonal Officer,
IOB Central Office Building,
3rd Floor, No.763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
4.The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Kilpauk Branch, Chennai – 10.
5.UCO Bank,
Rep., by its General Manager,
Zonal Office,
No.328, Thambuchetty Street,
Chennai – 1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
6.The Branch Manager,
UCO Bank,
Chetpet Branch,
779, Poonamalee High Road,
Chennai.
7.ICICI Bank,
Neyveli Branch,
Rep. By its General Manager,
5/5 Main Bazaar Street,
Neyveli Township, Neyveli – 3.
8.The Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep. By its Branch Manager,
Dr.Ambedkar Road,
Neyveli – 607 803.
9.M/s NLC TN Power Limited,
(A Subsidiary company of NLC India Limited)
A Government of India Enterprises,
AJV between NLC India Limited and TANGEDCO
Harbour Estate, Tuticorin 628 004.
10.The General Manager (HR),
M/s. NLC TN Power Limited,
(A Subsidiary company of NLC India Limited)
A Government of India Enterprises,
AJV between NLC India Limited and TANGEDCO
Harbour Estate, Tuticorin 628 004.
11.The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Near Lotus Tank,
New No.5, Old No.1A (IInd Floor)
Lady Doak College Road,
Chinnachokkikulam,
Madurai – 625 002.
12.The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020
04.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
