OSA/6/2024 of T.A.PREMKUMARI Vs T.A.SASIKALA on 26 October 2026

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.

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

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. MKN OSA No. 6 of 2024 26-10-2026