IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 27^th day of March, 2025 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON MA 41/2023 (Arising out of IA 1384/2022 in OA 256/2022 on the file of DRT - I, Chennai)

Between P.Shanmuga Priya D/o. Late. Y.Pallakku Durai Old No.24, New No.14 Ramanathan Street T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. …..Appellant And

1. Indian Bank T.Nagar Branch Now at Stressed Asset Management Branch No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore Chennai 600 008.

2. M/s. Saravana Stores Gold Palace rep. by its Partners No.28, Ranganathan Street T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

3. Y.Pallakku Durai (deceased)

S/o. S.Yogarathinam Managing Partner M/s.Saravana Stores Gold Palace Old No.24, New No. 14, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017. 4. Mrs.P.Sujatha Partner of M/s. Saravana Stores Gold Palace W/o. Y.Pallakku Durai Old No.24, New No. 14, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017.

5. Mr. Y.P.Shiravan Partner of M/s. Saravana Stores Gold Palace S/o. Y.Pallakku Durai Old No.24, New No. 14, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017.

6. Y.Lakshmi M/o. Late.Y.Pallakkudurai Old No.24, New No.14 Ramanathan Street T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. …..Respondents Counsel for Appellant : Mr. K.V.Babu Counsel for R1 : Mr. T.Sundarrajan Counsel for R2, R4 & R5 : Mr. N.V.Prakash Counsel for R6 : None

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 20 of RDDB & FI Act challenging the order passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT – I, Chennai in IA 1384/2022 in OA 256/2022 dated 07.02.2023.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of allowing the IA 1384/2022, application filed to implead the Legal Heirs of the deceased 2^nd respondent before the DRT, one Mr.Y.Pallakku Durai, who is the 3^rd respondent herein. Ms.P.Shanmugha Priya, appellant herein and one Mrs.Y.Lakhsmi are the legal heirs of the deceased Mr.Y.Pallakku Durai. Therefore, an application was filed before DRT vide IA 1384/2022 to implead them as the LRs of the deceased respondent, Mr.Y.Pallakku Durai. That application was allowed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT - I, Chennai and challenging the said order, this appeal is filed.

3. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is no way connected with the partnership firm, 1^st respondent before the DRT, i.e., M/s.

Saravana Stores Gold Palace and appellant cannot be impleaded as a legal representative to face the liability. Ld. Counsel produced a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Civil Appeal Nos.7768-7769 of 2023 for this proposition. Relying on Para 20 of this judgement, Ld. Counsel submitted that appellant has not inherited any estate from the deceased 3^rd respondent and therefore, appellant cannot be impleaded.

4. Ld. Counsel for R1, submitted that the deceased 3^rd respondent, Mr.

Mr.Y.Pallakku Durai, had executed mortgage in respect of personal property, which is described in Schedule D to the OA. The property of the 1^st respondent firm was also mortgaged and that is described in Schedule A to C in the OA. Therefore, the appellant is a proper and necessary party for effective adjudication of the OA.

5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

6. It is seen that M/s. Saravana Stores Gold Palace, the 1^st respondent in OA

256/2022 is a partnership firm. So far as the loan obtained by the partnership firm, the partners are also individually liable. Not only that, the deceased 2^nd respondent in the OA, Mr. Mr.Y.Pallakku Durai, has offered his personal property as a security for the loan and that was described in Schedule D to the OA, apart from mortgaging the property of the firm, described in Schedule A to C. It is no doubt that from the submission of the Ld. Counsel for appellant and also the aforesaid judgment that the appellant would not be made personally liable, but made liable only if appellant derives any interest in the estate of the deceased. When it is not disputed that the appellant is the legal heir of the deceased Mr. Mr.Y.Pallakku Durai, it goes without saying that she ought to get a