INDIRA vs S. SUJATHA

OSA No. 88 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 88 of 2023 and CMP.No.11143 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010744112023}
1. Indira
W/o. Late.Hemachandran Old No. 193, New
No. 140 Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Tank Road,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 023.
2. H.Maheswaran
S/o. Late.Hemachandran Old No. 193, New No.
140 Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Tank Road,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 023.
3. H.Akilandeswari
D/o. Late.Hemachandran Old No. 193, New
No. 140 Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Tank Road,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 023.
4. H.Poorneswari
D/o. Late.Hemachandran Old No. 193, New
No. 140 Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Tank Road,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 023.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. S. Sujatha
W/o. A.Selvakumar, 3, V.P.Colony, North St,
Ayaavaram Chennai 023.
2. N.Kannappan
S/o. Natesa Udayar, No. 54, Lalathoppu St,
Thirukovilur 605757
3. Ramalingam
Andal Automobiles, No. 136A, Western St,
Thirukovilur 605757.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )

OSA No. 88 of 2023
4. Duraiswamy
26A, West St, (Previously working in
Treasury), Thirukovilur
5. S.Mohanraj
Working in Corporation Old No. 15-A, New
No. 27, 6th St, Secretariat Colony, Kilpauk,
Chennai 010.
6. P.Prakash
Working as Customs supervisor Old No. 15-A,
New No. 27, 6th St, Secretariat Colony,
Kilpauk, Chennai 010.
7. Sathyamurthy
S/o. Pandurangan, 26 West Street,
Kannuppuram, Thirukovilur.
8. Lakshmi
3 North Street, V.P.Colony, Ayanavaram
Chennai 023.
9. Guna
Father Name not known 3, North street,
V.P.Colony, Ayanavaram, Chennai 023
10.Raj
3, North street, V.P.Colony, Ayanavaram,
Chennai 023
11.T.N.Murugan
S/o. L.Natarajan
28, Theppakulam St, Thirukkovilur Kespa
Thirukovilur Tk.
12.Elumalai
Sri Angalamman Automobiles, 12, Western St,
Thirukkovilur.
13.Baby
W/o. A.Raman No.61, 101 Perumal Nagar St,
Thirukkovilur 605757
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )

OSA No. 88 of 2023
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of CPC read with
Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 28.3.2023 made in
Application No. 1366 / 2023 in CS No. 688/2012.
For Appellant(s): R. Loganathan
For Respondent(s): Notice Ordered For Rr1 ,11 And 12
M/S.v.srimathi
Avinash Wadhwani For R1
R-11 T.N.MURUGAN S/o. L.Natarajan 28,
Theppakulam St, Thirukkovilur Kespa
Thirukovilur Tk.
R-12 ELUMALAI Sri Angalamman Automobiles,
12, Western St, Thirukkovilur.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
Appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of the application filed to
issue subpoena to the bank authorities to produce certain documents, the present
appeal has been filed.
2. The application has been filed by the plaintiffs for suit for partition and
separate possession. Since the document has been produced in xerox copies, it is
necessary to prove the movables by issuance of summons to the respective bank
managers.
3. The very nature of the affidavit filed and relief sought for by the
appellants is as follows:-
“a) The locker for security register of Indian Overseas Bank
attached to Nehru Park Branch, Chennai handled by
T.Manimegalai and thereafter by Sujatha Selvakumar and also the
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )

OSA No. 88 of 2023
authorization granted in favour of Sujatha Selvakumar by
T.Manimegalai connected with the Saving Bank Account 20032.
The deposit was handled to earlier by T.Manimegalai when she
was alive and thereafter by Sujatha Selvakumar having key No.95,
Locker No.117, closed on 27.08.2012 (Xerox copy produced).
b) The salary particulars of Hemachandran, Roll No.25336-
clerk/shroff drawn when he was alive and other loan particulars he
had availed while he was in service during 1984 to 1992.
c) The amount of terminal benefit and other DCRG when he
died while in service on the death of T.Hemachandran – Bank clerk
Roll No.25336- clerk/sheroff.
d) the particulars of the persons, to whom the amounts were
settled may have to be furnished before the Court with the letters of
disbursement.
e) the particulars of the appointment given to Indira, 1st
plaintiff due to the death of her husband T.Hemachandran. The
salary fixed initially and the one now in existence.
f) The loan so far availed by T.Hemachandranbank clerk while he
was in service. T.Hemachandran (died on 02.08.1992).
The authorities before whom the particulars and original
records are available are as follows:
1.The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Choolai Branch
(Code 0245), Chennai 600 007. (joined as messenger from 1984)
2. The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Muthialpet Branch
(Code 305) No.230, Thambu Chetty Street, Muthialpet, George
Town, Chennai 600 001. (worked as clerk/shroff)
3.The Assistant General Manager, Personal Department /
Administration, Indian Overseas Bank, No.962, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002”
4. The learned Single Judge considered the application and dismissed the
application on the ground that the application is filed only to harass the
Managers of various Branches of Indian Overseas Bank to be present and bring
all the documents and further, the documents sought to be relied upon is noway
connected to the lis . Challenging the dismissal order, the present application has
been filed.
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )

OSA No. 88 of 2023
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials
placed on record.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
those documents are necessary to prove the movables. When we asked the
learned counsel for the appellant as to how it is relevant, according to him,
lockers particulars has to be seen. This Court is of the view that the suit itself is
not in respect of any movables, now is sought to be proved. It is further to be
noted that the appellant wants to establish the salary of her husband, who died
long back on 02.08.1982, the petitioner being the wife of the deceased/husband,
she is supposed to know about the salary of the husband and further, she wants
to prove the salary of her husband from the year 1984 to 1992 and that is not
relevant to partition suit.
7. Similarly, with regard to the nature of receiving terminal benefits also
she wants to prove now. The plaintiff herself being the wife she ought to have
known the same, however, through the bank, now she seeks to produce the
documents. With regard to the terminal benefits also, there is no prayer
whatsoever, therefore, we are of the view that mere calling the document,
particularly security register for locker attached to the banks will not serve any
purpose. It is to be noted that it is not the case of the appellants that definite
movables are available in the locker.
8. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merits in this appeal and
accordingly, this original side appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )

OSA No. 88 of 2023
connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
(N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.)
13-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dhk
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )

OSA No. 88 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J.
dhk
OSA No. 88 of 2023

13-10-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )