(Prayer: That the letters of administration to the property and credit of the deceased to have effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu may be granted to him.

To implead the Applicants herein as party Respondents 1 to 4 in O.P.No.484 of 2021.

To implead the Applicants herein as party Respondents in O.P.No.484 of 2021.)

1. The present petition concerns the estate of one of this State’s most distinguished personalities, who held an enduring place in the hearts of millions and dominated the fields of cinema and public life for nearly half a century. Though he passed away about four decades ago, his name and legacy remain vibrant in public memory. He was Dr M.G. Ramachandran, popularly known as “M.G.R.”, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

2. The petitioner is the son of Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran. He has filed the present petition seeking the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the immovable property described in the schedule to the petition, situated in Tiruchirappalli.

3. Dr M.G. Ramachandran and Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran died on 24.12.1987 and 19.05.1996, respectively. During their lifetimes, Dr M.G. Ramachandran executed a Will dated 18.01.1987, and V.N. Janaki Ramachandran executed two Wills dated 22.02.1995 and 16.03.1995. The Will dated 18.01.1987, executed by Dr M.G. Ramachandran, was probated by this Court in O.P. No. 388 of 1992 by order dated 14.07.1992.

4. According to the petitioner, Dr M.G. Ramachandran purchased the property described in the schedule to the petition under a registered sale deed dated 16.03.1984. It is stated that the property was neither included in nor otherwise disposed of by his Will dated 18.01.1987. The petitioner therefore contends that Dr M.G. Ramachandran died intestate in respect of the scheduled property and that, upon his death, the property devolved upon his wife, Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran, as his legal heir.

5. It is further stated that Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran did not include the scheduled property in her Wills dated 16.03.1995 and 22.02.1995, nor did she otherwise dispose of it. Consequently, according to the petitioner, she too died intestate in respect of the said property. Claiming through his mother, the petitioner has therefore approached this Court seeking the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the scheduled property.

6. In the present proceedings, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. Initially, only Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. When the matter was listed before this Court for orders on 08.07.2022, the Court directed the petitioner to produce the legal-heirship certificate of the late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran. Thereafter, at the petitioner's request, the matter was adjourned on several occasions.

7. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Application Nos. 5580 to 5582 of 2022 seeking to reopen and recall the evidence and to mark an additional document. The said applications were allowed on 05.12.2022. The petitioner was thereafter recalled and examined on 20.12.2022, and the legal-heirship certificate relating to the late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran was marked as Ex. P11.

8. Even thereafter, when the matter was listed before the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought repeated adjournments, stating that further time was required to produce all relevant documents. As no additional documents were filed, the matter was ultimately directed to be listed under the caption “Finally” on 06.11.2023.

9. When the petition was subsequently listed on 08.01.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an appropriate application to verify the legal heirs and to implead the necessary parties. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 31.01.2024. Thereafter, the matter did not appear on the list for nearly two and a half years and was relisted only on 04.06.2026. After a few further adjournments, the learned counsel for the petitioner endorsed on 13.07.2026 that no necessary parties needed to be impleaded.

10. It is not in dispute that the late Dr M.G. Ramachandran had a brother, M.G. Chakrapani, who died leaving behind ten children—seven sons and three daughters—of whom three are stated to be alive.

11. At this stage, certain members claiming through the branch of the late M.G. Chakrapani filed Application Nos. 4094 and 4095 of 2026 on 17.09.2026, seeking to be impleaded in the present proceedings. Four applicants filed Application No. 4094 of 2026, while seven applicants filed Application No. 4095 of 2026. Of the eleven applicants, two are sons of the late M.G. Chakrapani. Of the remaining nine applicants, two are the widows of his deceased sons, and the remaining seven are his grandchildren. Thus, eleven persons have sought impleadment through the aforesaid two applications.

12. It is, however, brought to the notice of this Court that these applicants do not represent the entire branch of the late M.G. Chakrapani. One other surviving son of M.G. Chakrapani, as well as certain other grandchildren claiming through his deceased sons and daughters, have not joined in filing the present applications and have not, as yet, sought impleadment in these proceedings.

13. In the affidavits filed in support of the applications, the applicants claim to be the legal heirs and representatives of the late M.G. Chakrapani, the brother of Dr M.G. Ramachandran. They further state that members of their branch had already instituted O.P. No.69 of 2012, seeking Letters of Administration in respect of immovable property situated at Saligramam, which, according to them, had not been included in or otherwise disposed of under the Will of Dr M.G. Ramachandran.

14. The applicants contend that the present petition has been filed without impleading the persons claiming through the branch of the late M.G. Chakrapani, despite the scheduled property being stated to have originally belonged to Dr M.G. Ramachandran and its devolution upon his death now being disputed. According to them, Letters of Administration cannot be granted in respect of such property without affording an opportunity of hearing to all persons asserting a competing interest in the estate. They have therefore sought impleadment to ensure a complete and effective adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceedings.

15. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants are the legal heirs and descendants of late M.G. Chakrapani, who was the brother of late Dr. M.G. Ramachandran. Their relationship to M.G. Chakrapani is not in dispute. It was submitted that the present Original Petition has been filed by J. Surendran seeking Letters of Administration in respect of the estate said to have devolved upon his mother, late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran. The specific property forming the subject matter of the present O.P. is the property at Tiruchirappalli, stated to have been purchased by late Dr.M.G. Ramachandran under Document No.1040 of 1984 dated 16.03.1984, followed by a rectification deed dated 20.10.1984. According to the applicants, the crucial aspect is that the said Trichy property did not form part of the Will dated 18.01.1987 executed by late Dr.M.G. Ramachandran. Likewise, late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran died on 19.05.1996 leaving two Wills dated 22.02.1995 and 16.03.1995, but, according to the applicants, neither of those Wills deals with the Trichy property.

16. The Learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the very question whether the Trichy property ever devolved upon late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran remains to be determined. The applicants specifically contend that title, possession and devolution of the Trichy property require independent consideration. It was further submitted that the petitioner seeks Letters of Administration on the footing that late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran died intestate insofar as the schedule property is concerned. The petitioner has pleaded that no Will concerning the schedule property was found and that he, being her son, is entitled to administer the estate. Thus, according to the applicants, the present proceeding is not merely concerned with proof of either of late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran's two Wills, but necessarily involves the question whether the schedule property formed part of her estate at all.

17. The Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the applicants, being persons claiming through the branch of M.G. Chakrapani, have a direct interest in opposing the petitioner's assertion that the property exclusively devolved upon late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran and thereafter upon him. The applicants have also referred to the earlier proceedings in O.P.No.69 of 2012, wherein the heirs of M.G. Chakrapani asserted rights in respect of properties of M.G. Ramachandran said to have remained outside the Will dated 18.01.1987. It was contended that the earlier adjudication concerning the copyright in the autobiography “Naan Yen Pirandhen” cannot conclude the present issue. That dispute related to copyright stated to have vested in late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran, whereas the present controversy concerns an immovable property which, according to the applicants, was neither covered by Dr. M.G. Ramachandran's Will nor by the two Wills of late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran.

18. The Learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the applicants have a caveatable interest in the estate in question and are entitled to be heard before any Letters of Administration is granted in respect of the schedule property. Reliance was placed on G. Jayakumar v. R. Ramaratnam, AIR 1972 Mad 212 and Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, (2008) 4 SCC 300, in support of the proposition that a person who can demonstrate an interest which would be affected by the grant has a right to enter caveat and contest the proceeding.

19. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submitted that, while considering the devolution of the subject property, this Court has to take into account the claims of the agnates and cognates. According to the applicants, if the petitioner seeks to establish exclusive devolution of the property upon late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran, the appropriate remedy is by way of a separate suit and not by seeking Letters of Administration.

20. It was further submitted that, since the applicants claim an interest through the branch of M.G. Chakrapani and dispute the alleged devolution of the schedule property upon Janaki Ramachandran, they are entitled to be heard in the proceedings. On that basis, it was prayed that the application be allowed and the applicants be impleaded as respondents in O.P.No.484 of 2021.

21. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject property does not form part either of the Will dated 18.01.1987 executed by late Dr. M.G. Ramachandran or of the two Wills dated 22.02.1995 and 16.03.1995 executed by late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran. The present proceedings are therefore for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the said property.

22. It is submitted that knowledge of the subject property came to light only after the proceedings relating to the copyright of the book “Naan Yen Piranthen” and, upon reading the contents of the said book, the existence of the property became known. Thereafter, the present proceedings for Letters of Administration came to be instituted.

23. The learned counsel further submits that Dr. M.G. Ramachandran had specifically stated in his Will dated 18.01.1987 that late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran was his sole surviving legal heir, as he had no biological issue. It is further submitted that the question of reversionary rights would arise only in respect of ancestral property. The subject property is not ancestral property, but the self-acquired property of Dr. M.G. Ramachandran, purchased by him out of his own funds in the year 1984.

24. The learned counsel therefore submits that the principle of reversionary rights has no application to the subject property and, consequently, the legal heirs of M.G. Chakrapani have no caveatable interest in the subject property and are not entitled to be impleaded in the proceedings.

25. The principal point for consideration in the petition is whether the petitioner has established his entitlement to the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the property described in the schedule to the petition.

26. It is an admitted fact that the scheduled property originally belonged to the late Dr M.G. Ramachandran, who died on 24.12.1987 leaving a Will dated 18.01.1987, which was subsequently probated. The petitioner is the son of the late Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran by her first husband, Mr Ganapathi Bhat.

27. The petitioner claims that the scheduled property was neither included in nor otherwise disposed of under the Will of Dr M.G. Ramachandran and that, upon his death, it was inherited exclusively upon Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran as his sole Class I heir. On that basis, the petitioner contends that, after his mother's death, he became entitled to administer the scheduled property as part of her estate.

28. The burden lies on the petitioner, who seeks the grant, to establish the complete chain of succession on which his entitlement depends. Ex.P11, produced by the petitioner in support of his claim, is the legal-heirship certificate relating to Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran and may establish the persons who succeeded to her estate. It does not, by itself, establish that the scheduled property had earlier vested in her on the death of Dr M.G. Ramachandran. The petitioner has not produced a legal-heirship certificate relating to Dr M.G. Ramachandran or other satisfactory evidence establishing that Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran was his sole heir at the relevant time.

29. The petition itself discloses a matter requiring explanation. In paragraph 4, the petitioner states that his mother was earlier married to Mr Ganapathi Bhat, that Mr Ganapathi Bhat died on 28.02.1972, and that his mother married Dr M.G. Ramachandran on 14.06.1962. On the petitioner's own dates, the asserted marriage with Dr M.G. Ramachandran preceded the death of the former husband by nearly ten years. During the hearing on 21.09.2026, this Court drew the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the averments contained in paragraph 4 of the petition and sought an explanation concerning the dates stated therein. In response, the learned counsel submitted only that Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran had been described in the Will of Dr M.G. Ramachandran as his sole legal heir.

30. The petition does not state whether the earlier marriage had been dissolved by a decree of divorce or had otherwise legally ceased to subsist before 14.06.1962. No document or other evidence explaining the legal status of the earlier marriage on the asserted date of the subsequent marriage has been placed before the Court.

31. This issue is significant because the petitioner’s entire claim rests on the assertion that Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran was the sole legal heir of Dr M.G. Ramachandran, and that the scheduled property consequently was inherited by her. Unless that foundational fact is established by satisfactory evidence, the petitioner cannot maintain that the property formed part of his mother’s estate merely on the strength of Ex. P11.

32. The law does recognise a strong rebuttable presumption in favour of a lawful marriage where a man and woman have cohabited for a long period and have consistently been treated by society as husband and wife. The presumption, however, is permissive and rebuttable; circumstances which weaken it cannot be ignored. The petitioner's own pleading of two specific dates creates a circumstance requiring explanation. It is true that Janaki Ramachandran has been described in the records as the wife of Dr. M.G. Ramachandran, and even the applicants refer to her as such. Such a description, coupled with long cohabitation and public recognition, is certainly a relevant circumstance. However, in the absence of material showing that the earlier marriage had legally come to an end before 14.06.1962, the mere description of Janaki Ramachandran as the wife of Dr. M.G. Ramachandran would not, by itself, establish that aspect. In view of Section 5(i) read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the legal effect of the subsequent marriage would depend upon whether the earlier marriage had lawfully come to an end before 14.06.1962.

33. In support of his claim, the petitioner relies also on the judgment (Ex.P.7) of this Court dated 21.06.2012 in J. Surendran v. Mrs Sudha Vijayakumar, C.S. No.17 of 2004. That suit concerned the copyright in Dr M.G. Ramachandran’s autobiography, Naan Yen Piranthen. In paragraph 18 of the judgment, this Court found that the copyright had not been disposed of under his Will. It inferred that Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran inherited it by intestate succession as his sole non-testamentary legal heir.

34. The finding in that suit cannot be overlooked. The judgment records, among other matters, the first defendant’s admission that Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran became the owner of the copyright upon Dr M.G. Ramachandran’s death. It also records that the parties to that suit did not dispute the legality of their marriage. The Court thereafter considered the devolution of the copyright upon Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran’s death under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It held that the petitioner, being her son, succeeded to it.

35. The present petition concerns a different immovable property. The petitioner claims that it was not disposed of under Dr M.G. Ramachandran’s Will. If that assertion is established, succession to that property on his death must first be examined under Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act. A lawful widow falls within Class I of the Schedule. Persons claiming through his brother cannot inherit as Class II heirs if a Class I heir survived him. Section 15 becomes relevant only after it is established that the property vested in Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran and remained part of her estate upon her death.

36. The applicants seeking impleadment and claiming rights over this scheduled property were not parties to C.S. No.17 of 2004. The finding in that suit regarding copyright, though relevant, does not conclusively determine against them the succession of this scheduled immovable property. The proposed impleading respondents also claim rights over the property at Virugambakkam in O.P. No. 69 of 2012. They contend that the property is not covered by the Will of Dr. M.G. Ramachandran and, as sons of his brother, claim to inherit it as Class II heirs. Thus, rival claims to the property have arisen.The rival contentions must therefore be considered on the pleadings and evidence relating to this property.

37. In light of this inconsistency in the petition, the petitioner was required to explain the cessation of the earlier marriage or otherwise place satisfactory material establishing the succession he asserts; he has not done so. At the same time, the finding recorded in C.S. No.17 of 2004 regarding the legality of her marriage cannot simply be disregarded. In the present contested setting, this Court considers it inappropriate to treat either the unexplained dates in the petition or the finding in the copyright suit as conclusive on marital status and title to the scheduled property. The limited conclusion is that, on the pleadings and evidence presently before the Court, the petitioner has not satisfactorily established that the scheduled property devolved exclusively upon Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran and thereafter formed part of her estate. Questions of marital status, succession and title are expressly left open for determination in appropriate proceedings.

38. There is another aspect that concerns the territorial jurisdiction of this Court which requires consideration.

39. When the petition was presented, the Registry returned the papers on 28.04.2021, questioning its maintainability because the only property forming the subject matter of the petition is situated at Tiruchirappalli, outside the limits of this Court's Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. The petition was represented on 30.04.2021 with an endorsement that this Court had earlier dealt with connected probate proceedings relating to the same deceased and her husband and that the petition was maintainable under Order XXV Rule 14 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 217 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

40. Neither provision answers the territorial objection. Order XXV Rule 14 concerns the effect of a grant and does not prescribe the territorial limits within which an application may be entertained. Section 217 merely makes Part IX of the Indian Succession Act applicable to grants of probate and Letters of Administration, save as otherwise provided. It is not an independent source of territorial jurisdiction.

41. Sections 270 and 300 of the Indian Succession Act must be read together. Under Section 270, a District Judge may grant probate or Letters of Administration where the deceased, at the time of death, had a fixed place of abode or any movable or immovable property within the Judge's jurisdiction. Section 300(1) confers on the High Court concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of the powers conferred by the Act.

42. The concurrent jurisdiction under Section 300(1) is subject to Section 300(2). Except in cases to which Section 57 applies, a High Court cannot exercise such concurrent jurisdiction over a local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay in respect of a deceased Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, unless the State Government has authorised it by notification in the Official Gazette. No notification authorising this Court to exercise concurrent testamentary or intestate jurisdiction throughout the districts of Tamil Nadu has been produced or shown to apply.

43. The present petition is not one for probate or for Letters of Administration with a Will annexed in respect of a Will or property governed by Section 57. The petitioner's case is that the scheduled property was omitted from the Wills of both Dr M.G. Ramachandran and Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran and consequently devolved by intestate succession. The exception in Section 300(2) for cases to which Section 57 applies therefore does not enlarge the territorial reach of this Court for the present intestate grant.

44. Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran's stated fixed place of abode at the time of her death was No.4/119, M.G.R. Gardens, Mount Poonamallee High Road, Ramavaram. When the petition was instituted and re-presented, Ramavaram fell within Tiruvallur District and outside this Court's Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. The only scheduled immovable property is situated at Tiruchirappalli. Thus, neither the deceased's fixed place of abode nor any part of the property sought to be administered supplied a territorial connecting factor within the Original Side jurisdiction of this Court.

45. The probate granted by this Court in O.P. No.388 of 1992 in respect of the Will of Dr M.G. Ramachandran does not confer continuing jurisdiction over every later proceeding relating to property once owned by him or by Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran. That proceeding included properties and assets within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. Each subsequent petition must independently satisfy the statutory jurisdictional requirements. The present petition does not do so.

46. The Registry's numbering of the petition and the applications does not constitute a judicial determination of maintainability or jurisdiction; the same cannot dispense with the Court's duty to examine the statutory requirements applicable to this proceeding.

47. Application Nos.4094 and 4095 of 2026 have been filed by persons claiming through the branch of the late M.G. Chakrapani. A person intending to oppose a testamentary or intestate grant must follow the procedure prescribed by the Original Side Rules, including the lodging of a caveat and the supporting affidavit where required. The applicants instead sought impleadment as though the Original Petition were an ordinary civil suit. The applications in their present form do not conform to the prescribed testamentary procedure.

48. A further irregularity appears from the record. Section 55(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 requires the prescribed particulars to be forwarded to the Collector having jurisdiction over the place where the deceased's property is situated, for verification of the estate's valuation.

49. The only immovable property listed in the schedule is situated at Tiruchirappalli. The statutory communication therefore ought to have been addressed to the Collector of Tiruchirappalli District. The copy available in the record shows that it was addressed to the Collector of Chennai. Neither the petition nor the record explains why notice was sent to the Collector of Chennai when no part of the scheduled property is shown to be situated in Chennai District.

50. The petitioner's assertion that the scheduled property was left outside the Will of Dr M.G. Ramachandran also required notice to, or satisfactory material from, the executor or the person presently representing the probated estate. Such person could place before the Court the inventory, accounts and particulars of the properties administered under the probated Will. In the absence of such representation or equivalent records, the unilateral assertion that the property remained outside the testamentary administration cannot safely be accepted.

51. Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran died on 19.05.1996, whereas the petition was first presented on 20.12.2019 and re-presented on 30.04.2021. The petition does not disclose when the right or necessity to seek the present grant arose or explain the interval of more than twenty-three years. The delay is not treated merely as an arithmetical bar from the date of death; it is material because possession, mutation, alienation and the administration of the property during the intervening decades have not been disclosed.

52. The petitioner has not produced any property-tax assessment, revenue record, patta, municipal record or other document from the competent local authority showing in whose name the property presently stands or who has possessed and enjoyed it during the intervening period. The identity of the present occupant or person in possession has also not been disclosed.

53. A copy of the sale deed dated 16.03.1984 in the name of Dr M.G. Ramachandran and the rectification deed dated 20.10.1984 have been produced. No encumbrance certificate covering the period from the purchase to the presentation of the petition has been filed. There is therefore no satisfactory material showing that the property was not alienated or encumbered in the meantime, or that it continued to form part of the estate at the relevant dates.

54. The deficiencies are not confined to the choice of territorial forum. The petitioner has failed to establish the foundational succession from Dr M.G. Ramachandran to Mrs V.N. Janaki Ramachandran; the person representing the probated estate has not been brought before the Court; the present title, possession and encumbrance position has not been disclosed; and the rival claims reveal substantial disputes concerning succession and title.

55. A proceeding for Letters of Administration determines whether representative title should be granted; it is not a substitute for a civil suit adjudicating substantive title to the property. The disputed questions concerning status, succession and competing ownership cannot be conclusively determined in this proceeding on the present pleadings and evidence.

56. The petitioner has not sought return of the petition for presentation before another court. More importantly, return would not cure the independent and fundamental defects identified above. This is not a case in which the petition is otherwise complete and requires only presentation before the territorially competent court. The appropriate course is therefore to refuse the grant and dismiss the petition, while leaving the petitioner in the main O.P. and the implead applicants in the applications at liberty to pursue appropriate declaratory, consequential or administration proceedings before the competent court on complete pleadings and evidence. All their contentions are left open.

57. In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Original Petition, Application Nos.4094 and 4095 of 2026 are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.