High Court · 2025

T.O.S. No. 28 of 2003 andC.S. No. 647 of 2004IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 22.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYANT.O.S. No. 28 of 2003andC.S. No. 647 of 2004J.Parthasarathy … PlaintiffVs.1.S.Rajalakshmi2.V.R.Krishnan(deceased)3.V.R.Jagannathan(deceased)4.V.R.Rajan5.R.Priya, D/o.Late V.R.Krishnan6.Rekha, D/o.Late V.R.Krishnan7.T.Vijayalakshmi, W/o.V.R.Jagannathan[D5 and D6 brought on record as Lrs of deceased 2nd defendant and D7 brought on record as wife of deceased 3rd defendant and amendment carry out as per order dated 13.04.2022 in A.No.1558 of 2022 and A.No.2922 of 2022 dated 22.07.2022. … DefendantsPRAYER: This Testamentary and Original Suit had been filed under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, XXXIX of 1925 for the grant of Letters of Administration.Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.O.S. No. 28 of 2003 andC.S. No. 647 of 2004For Plaintiff : Mr.L.Dhamodaran For Defendants: Mr.R.SubramanianC.S. No. 647 of 2004:-1.S.Rajalakshmi2.V.R.Krishnan (deceased)3.V.Jagannatathan (deceased)4.V.R.Vasudevan (deceased)5.V.R.Rajan(5th plaintiff is already on record and recorded as Legal heir of deceased 4th plaintiff as per Order dated 10.01.2023 in Memo in C.s. NO. 647 of 2004.)6.K.Priya...PlaintiffsVs.1.The Director of Collegiate Education.2.The Deputy Director of Collegiate Educational.3.The Principal, Meenakshi College.4.The State Bank of India Kodambakkam, Rep. by its Branch Manager.5.Dr.T.Natarajan Babu6.R.Venkatramani7.J.Parthasarathy8.T.Vijayalakshmi(Defendants 7 & 8 are already in record and recorded as Legal Heir of deceased 3rd plaintiff as per Order dated 10.01.2023 in memo in C.S. No. 647 of 2004.)9.K.Rekha...DefendantsPage 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.O.S. No. 28 of 2003 andC.S. No. 647 of 2004Prayer Civil Suit had been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking as follows:-(a) the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Late V.R.Kousalya and entitled to succeed to her estate and to receive.(b) the terminal benefits payable to late V.R.Kousalya to the plaintiffs;(c) directing the 3rd defendant to return all the belonging of Late V.R.Koualya in their possession including locker key, pass books, LIC policies and other things left her in the college and in the custody of her colleagues in the college;(d) directing the 7th and 8th defendants to pay the plaintiffs the amounts they have received from LIC of India under the policies in favour of Late V.R.Kousalya and to render true and proper accounts for the benefits of investment of the amount all these years;(e) direct the 4th defendant to break open the locker No.211, if need been and handed over the contents thereof after inventory and due verification;(f) direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit;(g) grant such further or other reliefs as this Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case render justice. For Plaintiffs : Mr.R.SubramanianFor Defendants : Mr.L.Dhamodaran (D7) Mr.Rank Associates (DD4, 7 & 8) Mr.S.Arumugam, GA (DD1 & 2)C O M M O N J U D G M E N TExercising prudent, the parties have come to a compromise as to division of terminal benefits of Dr.V.R.Kousalya, who was working as Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.O.S. No. 28 of 2003 andC.S. No. 647 of 2004Associate Professor in Economics in Meenakshi College for Women. To arrive at this compromise, they have taken nearly two decades. 2. TOS No. 28 of 2003 had been filed seeking Letters of Administration with respect to a Will dated 22.02.1998 executed by Dr.V.R.Kousalya, who died on 01.03.1998. She had left behind 5 legal heirs, who are her sisters and brothers. Instead of appreciating the efforts taken by her to go over to discharge her duties as a Professor, the legal representatives have taken a conscious decision to start quarrelling among themselves over the division of her terminal benefits. They must have been really happy that she died and more happy that they are now able to get some share of the terminal benefits without her enjoying the same. 3. At any rate, finally wisdom had dawned. A Joint Memo of Compromise had been presented before me dated 22.08.2025. Even before this compromise could be reached, among her legal heirs, 4 of them have died leaving behind only V.R.Rajan and the legal representatives of the other legal heirs. They have now decided to divide the terminal benefits into 3 equal parts. V.R.Rajan is getting 1/3rd share, Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.O.S. No. 28 of 2003 andC.S. No. 647 of 2004J.Parthasarathy, who is the 7th defendant in the suit would be getting another 1/3rd share and K.Priya, who is the 6th plaintiff in the suit and the 9th defendant K.Rekha would be jointly entitled to another 1/3rd share. 4. By this compromise, the 5th to 7th defendants had also filed consent affidavit for grant of Letters of Administration with respect to the aforementioned Will executed by Dr.V.R.Kousalya.5. Today, V.R.Rajan, J.Parthasarathy and K.Priya are present in Court. K.Priya also represents the 9th defendant, K.Rekha, who is her sister. The Memorandum of Compromise had been signed by all the three individuals and also by the learned counsels for the 5th and 6th plaintiffs / 5th and 6th defendants and by the learned counsel for the 7th defendant /Plaintiff. The Memorandum of Compromise is taken on file. 6. In view of the same, the Testamentary and Original Suit is decreed and Letters of Administration to be granted to the plaintiffs therein, with obligation to divide in aforementioned terms the terminal benefits payable to Dr.V.R.Kousalya. The suit is also decreed in terms of Memorandum of Compromise. Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.O.S. No. 28 of 2003 andC.S. No. 647 of 20047. On behalf of the 1st and 2nd defendants, the Directorate of Collegiate Education and Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, the amount which could be thus so divided, which is called the monetary benefits eligible to be paid to the legal heirs of Dr.V.R.Kousalya, had been forwarded to this Court. The same is placed on record. The same would also form part of the Decree and enclosed along with the decree. No costs. 8. If the parties have any grievances over the amounts as determined by the 1st and 2nd defendants, they are at liberty to make necessary application in that regard before the appropriate authorities.22.08.2025Index :Yes/NoMayaPage 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.O.S. No. 28 of 2003 andC.S. No. 647 of 2004C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.MayaT.O.S. No. 28 of 2003andC.S. No. 647 of 2004Dated : 22.08.2025Page 7 of 7