J.Catherine And 20 Others v. K. Shanmugasundaram And 3 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA AND TOS NO. 78 OF 2024

1. J.Catherine and 20 Others Both residing at No.159/49, Solai 1st Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.

2. J.Sheela Both residing at No.159/49, Solai 1st Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

3. A.Muralidharan All are residing at No.2, Solai Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

4. A.Santharaj Chennai

5. A.Rangarajan Chennai

6. A.Balamurugan Chennai

7. A.Majubashni Chennai

8. A.Sundaravadanam

Chennai

9. V.Ranjani Chennai

10. J.Devaki Jayaraman Chennai

11. A.Padmini Chennai

12. C.Vijayalakshmi Chennai

13. A.Vijayalakshmi Chennai

14. S.Asokan All are residing at No.19/9, Sabapathy Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

15. Ms.S.Vimalavani Chennai

16. B.Jagadeeswaran All are residing at No.4, Solai Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

17. B.Vikendira Selvan Chennai

18. B.Sarala Chennai

19. Mohana Chennai

20. Harinee Rukmangathan Both are residing at No.1, Solai Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

21. Saran Rukmangathan Both are residing at No.1, Solai Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

Applicant(s) Vs

1. K. Shanmugasundaram And 3 Others S/o.Late A.P.Kannabiran, S/o.Late Kannabiran, Residing at 28, Sabapathy Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

2.Sarulatha D/o.K.Shanmugasundaram, S/o.Late Kannabiran, Residing at 28, Sabapathy Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

3.M/s.Prakash Castle Pvt Ltd Rep.by its Managing Director T.D.Dhathathri, No.35 F3, Selvam Nagar 2nd Street, Ponniammamedu, Thiruvallur District 600110.

4.The Sub Registrar Office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER To pass an order to implead the respondents 2 to 4 as Defendants 22 to 24 in the above T.O.S.No.78 of 2024.

For Applicant(s):

M/s. M.S. Mani For Respondent(s):

Mr.T.Kannan for R1

ORDER

This application has been filed by the applicants/defendants 1 to 21 seeking to implead respondents 2 to 4 as defendants 22 to 24 in the present testamentary original suit.

2. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impleadment of respondents 2 to 4 is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate the issues involved in the proceedings. It is further contended that, in the event the applicants file any counter-claim, the presence of respondents 2 to 4 would be essential, as they are said to have an interest in the subject matter of the case.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposed the application, contending that the present suit is a testamentary original suit filed by the plaintiff, and the applicants, who are defendants 1 to

21, are already parties to the proceedings. The suit, being a testamentary one, concerns the grant of probate or letters of administration and not the determination of title or ownership over the property. Therefore, the impleadment of respondents 2 to 4 as additional defendants does not arise, as they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings.

4. On a perusal of the records and the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is evident that the applicants have not established any substantial reason or legal necessity for the inclusion of respondents 2 to 4 as additional defendants. The applicants have merely stated that, in the event a counter-claim is filed, those parties may be necessary. Such a conditional or speculative reason cannot be accepted as a valid ground for impleadment.

5. It is a settled position of law that in testamentary proceedings, the scope of enquiry is confined to the genuineness, due execution, and validity of the Will, and not to questions of title or ownership over the property bequeathed under the Will. The parties interested in the estate of the deceased or having a caveatable interest are the only necessary parties. Hence, any attempt to implead third parties on the basis of a possible counter-claim or title dispute is beyond

the purview of a testamentary original suit.

6.Accordingly, this Court finds that the application has been filed without proper basis and is not maintainable in law. The reasons assigned in the affidavit are vague and unsatisfactory. The applicants, already being defendants in the suit, cannot seek to expand the scope of the proceedings by bringing in parties who are not directly connected with the testamentary issue.

7. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. In the result, this application stands dismissed. 16-10-2025 jrs Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

R.N.MANJULA J.

jrs AND TOS NO. 78 OF 16-10-2025