T.A.PREMKUMARI vs T.A.SASIKALA

Court
Madras High Court

OSA No. 6 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 6 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA012283502023}
AND
CMP NO. 1238 OF 2024
1. T.A.Premkumari
2. T.A.Malligabai
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. T.A.Sasikala
2. A.Ananthalakshmi
3. A.Anand
4. The Chief Manager
Indian Bank, Corporate Office, P.B.No.5555,
No.254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai 14.
5. The Branch Manager
Indian Bank, Chetpet Branch,
Chennai.
6. The Indian Overseas Bank
Rep. by its General Manager, Zonal Officer,
IOB Central Office Building, 3rd Floor,
No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.
7. The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank,
Kilpauk Branch, Chennai 600 010.
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
8. UCO Bank
Rep.by its General Manager, Zonal Office,
No.328, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai 600 001.
9. The Branch Manager
UCO Bank, Chetpet Branch, 779,
Poonamallee High Road, Chennai.
10.ICICI Bank
Neyveli Branch,
Rep.by its General Manager,
5/5, Main Bazaar Street, Neyveli Township,
Neyveli 3.
11.The Life Insurance Corporation of India
Rep.by its Branch Manager,
Dr.Ambedkar Road, Neyveli 607 803.
12.M/s.N.L.C.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.
13.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.
14.The Regional Labour Commissioner(Central)
Near Lotus Tank, New NO.5, Old No.1A
(IInd Floor) Lady Doak College Road,
Chinnachokkikulam,
Madurai 625 002.
15.T.A.Padmagandhi
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
16.T.A.Lalitha
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original
Side Rules r/w. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the fair and decretal
order dated 20.10.2023 in Application No.2253 of 2022 and A 1680 of 2021 in
CS 459 of 2019 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant(s): Mr.Sharath Chandran
For Respondent(s): Ms.Akshaya
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
for R1 to R3
Ms.V.Rajeswari for R6 and R7
Mr.N.Nithyanandam for R12 and R13
Mr.A.Saravanan for R15
No appearance for RR4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 & 16
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge made in A.No.2253 of
2022 in A.No.1680 of 2021 in C.S.No.459 of 2019, dated 20.10.2023, reversing
the order of the learned Master dated 22.04.2022 in A.No.1680 of 2021,
dismissing the application filed for amending the plaint, this Original Side
Appeal has been filed.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their
ranking in the suit.
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
3.Brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1.The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sisters of one T.A.Balaji. The defendants
12 to 14 are also the sisters of the said T.A.Balaji. The plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the
son and daughter of the predeceased sister of T.A.Balaji. The said T.A.Balaji
died intestate as a bachelor and issueless on 17.04.2019. The suit in C.S.No.459
of 2019 was laid seeking a declaration 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 the defendants 1 to 11. The plaintiffs also sought for a declaration that the
plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/6 share each; the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are entitled
to 1/6 share; and the defendants 12, 13 and 14 are entitled to 1/6 share in the
amount payable on the death of T.A.Balaji and for consequential reliefs. The
suit was mainly laid to claim the amounts payable on the death of the deceased
T.A.Balaji, who died intestate and was admittedly the brother of the plaintiffs 1
and 2 and the defendants 12 to 14.
3.2.Pending the suit, an application has been filed in O.A.No.723 of 2019
for permanent injunction. In the said application, a learned Single Judge of this
Court, by order dated 06.08.2020, while testing for a prima facie case, found
that distribution of the assets of the deceased Balaji will take place as per
Sections 8 and 9 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. While holding so, the
learned Single Judge has also held that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
12 to 14, who fall within the second entry of Clause II, are alone entitled to a
share in the estate of late T.A.Balaji in the hands of the defendants 1 to 11, each
being entitled to 1/5 share, and the defendants 3 and 4, who fall within the
fourth entry of Clause II, do not succeed to the estate of the deceased
T.A.Balaji.
3.3.The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the
Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.266 of 2020, wherein, the Division
Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 04.01.2022, dismissed the Appeal
confirming the findings of the learned Single Judge.
3.4.Thereafter, now, an application has been filed in A.No.1680 of 2021
for amendment of plaint inter alia contending that the assets left by the
deceased Balaji had been given by his grandparents. Therefore, a contention is
now raised as if the entire assets of the deceased Balaji are in the nature of
ancestral properties and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to equal share. The
learned Master, considering the fact that the amendment application has been
filed only in order to get over the findings of the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of this Court and that apart, the amendment will alter the nature
of the suit itself, dismissed the said application by order dated 22.04.2022.
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
3.5.On Appeal made in A.No.2253 of 2022 in A.No.1680 of 2021 in
C.S.No.459 of 2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated
20.10.2023, reversed the order of the learned Master and allowed the
amendment application. While allowing the amendment application, though the
learned Single Judge has recorded the fact that, as per Section 9 of the Hindu
Succession Act, the legal heirs in the first entry will exclude that in the second
entry and so on, taking a sympathetic view that the children of the predeceased
sister are excluded, held that the amendment will not alter the nature of the suit.
4.Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge allowing the
amendment application, the present Appeal has been filed.
5.Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge, in fact, virtually
amounts to overruling the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
O.S.A.No.266 of 2020. When the suit itself has proceeded on the ground that
the assets of the deceased Balaji were self acquired, now, after rendering of the
earlier finding, the present amendment application has been filed to the effect
that the properties are ancestral in nature. It is his contention that if such an
amendment is allowed, it will completely change the nature of the suit. He
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
would further contend that the earlier finding of the learned Single Judge, as
confirmed by the Division Bench, will operate as res judicata and the
amendment cannot be allowed to non-suit the earlier finding. Hence, he prayed
for interference.
6.Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that the amendment will not change the nature of the suit and the
amendment was sought only to refer that the assets left by the deceased Balaji
are ancestral in nature, which is a matter of evidence. Hence, they would
contend that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the amendment
application.
7.In the light of the above submissions, the points that arise for
consideration in this Appeal are as follows :
i. Whether the amendment sought by the plaintiffs 3 and 4 will alter
the nature of the suit ?
ii. Whether the earlier finding rendered by the learned Single Judge,
as confirmed by the Division Bench, will operate as res judicata ?
Point Nos.(i) and (ii) :
8.It is not in dispute that the suit has been originally laid for sharing the
assets left by the deceased Balaji, who died intestate. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are
the sisters of the deceased Balaji. Admittedly, they are Class-II legal heirs. The
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
defendants 3 and 4, though children of the predeceased sister of the deceased
Balaji, have also filed the suit claiming equal share. However, in the previous
litigation in O.A.No.723 of 2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court, relying
upon Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, which reads “among the heirs
specified in the Schedule, those in Class I shall take simultaneously and to the
exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in Class II shall be preferred
to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to
those in the third entry; and so on in succession” , has clearly recorded a finding
that, since the plaintiffs 3 and 4 fall within Entry 4 of Clause II, as per Section 9
of the Act, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 will be excluded by the other legal heirs who
are placed in the earlier entries. Such finding has been approved by the
Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.266 of 2020.
9.Therefore, the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge with regard
to the character of the property and entitlement has reached finality and the
same is binding on the parties. Only in order to get over the said finding, now,
the defendants 3 and 4 have adopted an innovative method by filing an
application for amendment contending that the assets left by the deceased Balaji
were given by his grandparents. In other words, it is their contention that the
properties are ancestral in nature.
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
10.It is relevant to note that the very declaration and partition are sought
in respect of movable properties left by the deceased. As the deceased was
admittedly working in Neyveli Lignite Corporation, all his death benefits are his
self acquired properties. Such being the position, now, filing an amendment
application treating the same as ancestral properties, in our view, is nothing but
to get over the earlier finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the same
suit. Though the earlier finding has been rendered in an interlocutary
application in the same suit, the same has reached finality and therefore, it will
also operate as res judicata .
11.The learned Single Judge who allowed the amendment application,
though having captured the correct position of law, has allowed the application
on sympathetic ground on the ground of discrimination of one of the categories
of legal heirs in claiming share as per Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The Court cannot show any sympathetic consideration to override the
substantive law. In the present case, the amendment not only alters the
character of the suit, but is also filed only to get over the earlier finding of this
Court in the same suit, which, in fact, operates as res judicata . Hence, the order
of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
12.Accordingly, this Original Side Appeal is allowed and the impugned
order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.)
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MKN
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 General Manager, Zonal Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank
IOB Central Office Building, 3rd Floor,
No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.
4. The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank,
Kilpauk Branch, Chennai 600 010.
5. The General Manager,
UCO Bank
Zonal Office, No.328, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai 600 001.
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
6. The Branch Manager
UCO Bank, Chetpet Branch, 779,
Poonamallee High Road, Chennai.
7. The General Manager,
ICICI Bank, Neyveli Branch,
5/5, Main Bazaar Street, Neyveli Township,
Neyveli 3.
8. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Dr.Ambedkar Road, Neyveli 607 803.
9. M/s.N.L.C.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.
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

OSA No. 6 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
AND
GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J.
MKN
OSA No. 6 of 2024
26-10-2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )