SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
V.Dharmarajan – Appellant
Versus
V.Nachammal – Respondent



##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

C.M.A(MD)No.1260 of 2025

8.P.Santhiya,

D/o.Late.Palaniappan.

9.K.V.Ramesh,

S/o.Late.Velayutham.

10.Maheswari,

D/o.Late.Velayutham.

11.Karur Vysya Bank Limited,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

Having registered office at No.20, Erode Road,

Vadivel Nagar L.N.S., Karur – 639 002.

12.State Bank of India,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

Having Corporate Centre,

State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road,

Mumbai 400 021. : Respondents

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 384 of the

India Successions Act, against the order, dated 26.06.2025 made in

Succession O.P.No.59 of 2024 on the file of the District and Sessions Court,

Karur.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Nagarajan,

For Respondents : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem, for R2.

: Mr.Madhan Alexander, for R11.

: No Appearance, for R1 to R10.

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 06:19:19 pm )

##PAGE3##

C.M.A(MD)No.1260 of 2025

J U D G M E N T

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order passed

in Succession O.P.No.59 of 2024, dated 26.06.2025 on the file of the

District and Sessions Court, Karur.

2. The appellant is the petitioner and he filed the petition under

Sections 373, 374 and 375 of Indian Succession Act, seeking orders to issue

succession certificate in his favour in respect of the shares standing in the

name of his father K.Velaytham, held in respondents 11 and 12 Banks.

3. The relationship not in dispute is that 1st respondent is the wife,

that the deceased K.V.Kumarasamy, deceased Palaniappan, 5th and 9th

respondents and the petitioner are the sons and that the 10th respondent is

the daughter of the deceased Velayutham. The second respondent is the wife

and the respondents 3 and 4 are the sons of the deceased K.V.Kumarasamy.

The 6th respondent is the wife and the respondents 7 and 8 are the daughters

of the deceased Palaniappan.

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 06:19:19 pm )

##PAGE4##

C.M.A(MD)No.1260 of 2025

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondents

1 to 10 are the legal heirs of the deceased Velayutham; that the said

Velayutham died intestate on 15.07.2018 leaving behind his wife, five sons

and a daughter as his legal heirs to succeed his estate; that subsequently,

Kumarasamy and Palaniappan sons of the Velayutham died leaving behind

the respondents 1 to 4 and the respondents 1, 6 to 8 respectively as their

legal heirs; that the petitioner has recently found two original share

certificates and dividend warrant issued by the 11th respondent company

and two original share certificates warrant issued by the 12th respondent

company in the name of the deceased Velayutham and through which, they

came to know that the said Velayutham had purchased 52,214 shares from

the 11th respondent and 1,300 shares from the 12th respondent; that the

petitioner immediately applied for the transmission of shares to one

authorised and registered share dealer Link Intime India Private limited,

who replied through e-mail, dated 13.01.2024, directing the petitioner to

obtain Succession certificate from the competent Court for transferring the

shares from the name of the said Velayutham to his legal heirs; that the

respondents 1 to 10 have no objection to issue the Succession certificate in

4/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 06:19:19 pm )

##PAGE5##

C.M.A(MD)No.1260 of 2025

favour of the petitioner for transferring the shares standing in the name of

the said Velayutham and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file

the above petition for issuance of Succession certificate.

5. The respondents 11 and 12 filed separate counter statements

raising formal objections. Despite receipt of notice, the respondents 1 and

10 had remained ex-parte. During enquiry, the petitioner examined himself

as P.W.1 and exhibited 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. The learned

Sessions Judge, upon considering the pleadings and evidence adduced, has

passed the impugned order, dated 26.06.2025, directing for issuance of

succession certificate to the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top