High Court · 2025

O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON05.06.2025PRONOUNCED ON 07.07.2025 CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABUO.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025in C.S.No.96 of 20251.A.Sridevi2.A.Babu3.V.Kala4.Vijayarani… Applicantsvs.1.R.Manoj Kumar2.Jaya3.R.Ramya4.A.Kannan5.K.Sathyaveni6.K.Someshwara Rao7.A.Bharath Rao8.A.Madhu9.Rajiv School of Excellence Educational Trust run by Rajiv Gandhi Educational Trust, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, No.5/516 B, Sakthi Sairam Street, Ganapathy Nagar, Alapakkam, Chennai – 600 116.... RespondentsPRAYER in O.A.No.441 of 2025:- The application has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents or 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025anyone claiming through them from in any manner alienating or dealing with the suit properties morefully set out in the schedule appended to the Judges Summons by way of sale lease, mortgage, joint development settlement, gift or any other deed, pending consideration of the suit.PRAYER in O.A.No.442 of 2025:- The application has been filed to grant an order of interim mandatory injunction directing the 1st respondent to deposit the original documents of title, morefully set out in the schedule appended to the Judges Summons, relating to the suit properties to the credit of the suit, pending consideration of the suit.PRAYER in O.A.No.443 of 2025:- The application has been filed to grant an order to appoint the applicants as party receivers to collect rents and manage and administer the suit properties morefully set out in the schedule appended to the Judges Summons, pending consideration of the suit.PRAYER in O.A.No.444 of 2025:- The application has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent from holding office in the 9th respondent, pending consideration of the suit.2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025In all Applications:For Applicants : Mr.R.ThiagarajanFor Respondents : Mr.Lakshmi Narasimhan for R1COMMON ORDERThese applications have been filed to grant interim injunctions not to alienate the suit schedule properties, to deposit the title documents on the file of this suit, to appoint applicants as party receivers to collect rents and not to hold office of ninth respondent. Since, all the applications are interlinked all are taken up together.2) Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the present suit is for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and defendants 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 are siblings, while defendants 1, 5, and 6 are their nephews and niece through maternal aunts. The plaintiffs’ maternal grandparents had four daughters, one of whom was Mrs. Nageswari alias Geetha, who married K. Ramamoorthy, died intestate on 13.11.2022 without leaving any issue. He submits that she was the absolute owner of the suit properties and was running a school, which is arrayed as the ninth defendant, and had also created a trust for imparting education. He further submits that upon her death intestate and issueless, her properties 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025devolved upon her Class-II legal heirs, which includes the plaintiffs and other parties to the suit.3) He submits that the applicants were shocked to learn, during a police enquiry, that the deceased had allegedly executed a Will in favour of the first respondent and a settlement deed in favour of the sixth respondent, both of whom are nephews of the plaintiffs. He further submits that the applicants question the genuineness of these documents, citing the suspicious circumstances under which they were purportedly executed, particularly as the deceased had been suffering from breast cancer since 2019 and was allegedly not in sound physical or mental condition to make testamentary dispositions. He further submits that the first respondent, acting as managing trustee of the ninth defendant, is also alleged to have taken undue advantage of his position by spending tuition fees and movable properties lavishly, and by surreptitiously removing and retaining key documents belonging to the deceased.4) Further, there is a reasonable apprehension that the first respondent may create encumbrances over the properties or otherwise deal with them in a manner that would prejudice the applicants' rights and potentially confer interests upon third parties. He contends that as the Will must be proved in 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025accordance with law by obtaining a Letter of Administration with the Will annexed, any present dealings by the respondent amount to unauthorized inter-meddling. Unless restrained by this Hon’ble Court, such actions may lead to unjust enrichment and frustrate the applicants' ability to enjoy the fruits of a preliminary decree, should it be granted. Therefore, he prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant interim relief as prayed for.5) Mr.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan, learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the deceased, Mrs. Nageswari alias Geetha. He contends that the applicants have no legal right or locus standi to claim any share in the said properties or to maintain these applications. He submits that the deceased had executed a registered Will dated 23.03.2022, vide Document No. 18/22, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam, bequeathing the properties to the first respondent. Further, he contends that the applicants have not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim, and the so-called family tree was created unilaterally and solely for the purpose of instituting the present suit, without any legal basis. He submits that the applicants’ claim has been raised only after the demise of the first respondent's mother, and the alleged relationships are irrelevant to the cause of action.5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 20256) He further contends that the deceased was in sound physical and mental health at the time of executing the Will, as evidenced by her active participation in two family functions held in April 2022. The allegations made by the applicants that the deceased’s signature was obtained under mysterious or surreptitious circumstances are baseless and require strict proof. He submits that these unsubstantiated claims are aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the first respondent and interfering with his personal and lawful affairs, despite the applicants having no legal standing to do so. Moreover, no credible material has been placed on record to support the allegations of fraud or undue influence. 7) It is further submitted that no complaints or adverse remarks have ever been made regarding the functioning of the ninth respondent trust, which is being run by the first respondent in accordance with the wishes of the deceased and for the benefit of students under a socio-economic welfare scheme. It is emphatically denied that there has been any maladministration, misappropriation, or irregularities in the management of the trust. He contends that the deceased, being the absolute owner of the properties, had full legal authority to dispose of them as she pleased. He further submits that the first 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025respondent has already initiated proceedings for grant of Letters of Administration in O.P. No. 163 of 2025 before this Hon’ble Court. The applicants have failed to make out a prima facie case or demonstrate a balance of convenience in their favour. Hence, it is prayed that the applications be dismissed as devoid of merits.8) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.9) Before adverting to the arguments made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, it is to be noted that the O.P.No.163 of 2025 filed by the first respondent herein had been converted as Testamentary Original Suit pursuant to the Caveat filed by a third party. The properties were all originally held by one Nageswari @ Geetha. It is the claim of the first respondent that she had executed a Will which is the subject matter of O.P.No163 of 2025. It is his further case that he is in the management of the nineth respondent. None of the party to the suit are class I legal heirs of the said Nageswari. The plaintiffs have alleged that the said Nageswari would not have made such a testamentary disposition and that there are suspicious circumstances on which the Will was made. This Court is of the view that the claim made by the plaintiffs at the 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025present stage cannot be gone into as the same would be subject to the evidence let in by the respective parties and could only be decided at the time of the final disposal of the suit. Since, the Original Petition filed by the first respondent had already been converted as TOS, the claim made by the plaintiffs with regard to the suspicious circumstances can be decided in the suit proceedings. The first respondent had denied the relationship with the parties particularly the plaintiffs to the said Nageswari. But on the contrary, he had pleaded that the said Nageswari was of sound disposition as she had even attended the functions of the second plaintiffs and also the sixth defendant during the month of April, 2022. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs are related to the said Nageswari. Their relationship could be substantiated during the trial in the suit. Further, as regards to the nineth respondent, it is the case of the first respondent that he had been effectively running the trust in concurrence with its object. A Trust Deed had been placed on record by the plaintiffs as Plaint Document No.8. A perusal of the said plaint document would indicate that the said Nageswari alias Geetha had propounded a Trust and under its bye-laws she had nominated five trustees including herself. The sixth respondent is the second trustee and there are three other trustees who are not parties to the suit. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 202510) When that being so, it is not clear as to how the first respondent alone is in the management of the trust. The Trust is in the nature of the public charitable trust which could be ascertained from the objects of the trust. It is the case of the applicants that the first defendant is in the possession of the title deeds with regard to the property and it is the case of the first respondent that he is in possession of the same by strength of the Will executed by the said Nageswari alias Geetha. He is also in collection of the rents of the various properties appended as suit schedule. Since, the applicants/ plaintiffs claim themselves as class II legal heirs of the deceased Nageswari alias Geetha and as stated supra even though the first respondent denied the relationship, he had admitted that the said Nageswari alias Geetha had attended with enthusiasm the functions of the family of the second plaintiff, this Court prima facie is of the view that they could be related to said Nageswari alias Geetha.11) If the first respondent is permitted to deal with the suit mentioned properties, it could prejudice the applicants. Hence, this Court is of the view that, the balance of the convenience for a grant of injunction restraining the first respondent from dealing with the property mentioned in the suit schedule has been made out by the applicants. Further, this Court is of the view that the mandatory injunction sought for need not be made at the present stage and the 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025same could also be ordered at the final disposal of the suit. Since, it is admitted that the first respondent is in the management of the suit schedule properties, this Court is of the view that he can be directed to submit periodical accounts every quarter which would protect the interest of the applicants. 12) As regards to the management of the nineth respondent, since it is found from the trust deeds that there are 5 trustees and by taking the claim of the first respondent that he alone is in the management of the ninth respondent, this Court is of the view that it would be better to appoint an Administrator to manage the ninth respondent by appointing an independent Advocate Receiver.13) For the aforesaid prima facie finding of the facts, this Court disposes these instant applications in the following manner;a. O.ANo.441 of 2025 is ordered as prayed for,b. O.A.No. 442 of 2025 shall be taken along with the final disposal of the suitC. In O.A.No. 443 of 2025, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to submit accounts with respect to the suit scheduled properties every quarter.10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025D.With respect to O.A.No.444 of 2025 Mr.Kasi Kumar, Advocate, No.188, New Additional Law Chamber, High Court Buildings, Chennai- 600 104, Mobile No.9444119161, is appointed as Advocate Receiver to administer the ninth respondent. He would be entitled to a remuneration of Rs.50,000/- per month excluding the expenditure. He would also be entitled to withdraw the actual expenses from the accounts of the ninth respondent.07.07.2025Index : Yes / NoInternet:Yes / NoGba11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025K.KUMARESH BABU.J.,Gba Pre-delivery Order inO.A.Nos.441 to 444 of 2025inC.S.No.96 of 202507.07.202512/12