Madras HC bins MGR kin plea claiming rights over one of his properties

Justice AD Maria Clete recently dismissed the plea made by the sons, daughters and grandchildren of the AIADMK founder’s brother MG Chakrapani.
Representative image
Representative imageFile Photo
Updated on: 
2 min read

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the relatives of late chief minister MG Ramachandran claiming rights over one of his properties at Virugambakkam, Chennai, stating it was not covered under the 1987 Will of the leader.

Justice AD Maria Clete recently dismissed the plea made by the sons, daughters and grandchildren of the AIADMK founder’s brother MG Chakrapani.

Pointing to a statement filed by the administrator of MGR’s estate on December 14, 2023, the judge said the property in Virugambakkam and another one at Saligramam form part of ‘Sathya Garden’ as mentioned in the Will. The rights of such properties are vested with the MGR School and Home for the Speech and Hearing-Impaired Trust, the judge added.

Chakrapani’s son MC Ramamurthy and others filed the actual suit in 2012 seeking grant of Letters of Administration. They said the property was not covered by the will of January 18, 1987 executed by MGR and therefore, he died intestate (without including the property in the Will) in respect of this property.

However, the suit remained unheard for about 10 years until 2022. The following year, the court dismissed the suit. Claiming to be the late CM’s Class II legal heirs, they filed the present petition.

Justice Clete said, “The very foundation of the original petition — that late MGR died intestate in respect of the petition - schedule property — is demonstrably untenable.”

“Once the Will covering the property has been probated and the estate has been brought under the testamentary administration, a parallel grant of Letters of Administration on the footing of intestate succession cannot be made in respect of the very same property,” the judge reasoned.

Stating that even assuming the petitioners dispute the identity or inclusion of the petition-schedule property in the Will, such a dispute cannot be resolved by seeking a parallel grant on the basis of intestacy, the judge held the earlier testamentary grant, in contrast, continues to operate.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com