Madras High Court: In an application filed under Order 21 Rule 58 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (‘CPC’) seeking to raise the order of attachment granted by this Court on 10-02-2025, Abdul Quddhose, J. held that the applicant was undoubtedly the absolute owner of the attached property, and that respondents 2 to 5/judgment debtors had no right, title, or interest in it. Further, the Court said that when the documentary evidence placed on record clearly revealed that the applicant was the owner of the property that had been wrongfully ordered to be attached by the Court, there was no necessity to direct the parties to trial.
Background
The property in question, belonging to the late actor Sivaji Ganesan, had been attached by the Court in March 2023 in a plea seeking execution of an arbitral award against his grandson, Dushyanth Ramkumar (respondent 3), and their production company, Eshan Productions.
The applicant and respondent 5 were sons of Sivaji Ganesan. Respondents 3 and 4 were the grandson and granddaughter of Sivaji Ganesan, respectively. Respondents 2 to 5 were the judgment debtors, and respondent 1 was the decree holder.
The applicant contended that he was the owner of the property and, according to him, his property had been wrongly attached through the Court’s order dated 10-02-2025. In support of his contention, the applicant relied upon certain documents through which he traced his title over the property that had been ordered to be attached by the Court. The applicant asserted that he alone was the owner of the property that had been ordered to be attached, and the judgment debtors had no right or interest in the same.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC dealt with the adjudication of claims or objections raised to the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It outlined the process for the Executing Court to determine whether the attached property was liable to attachment. Essentially, it provided a mechanism for third parties to challenge the attachment of property in which they claimed ownership or interest. Therefore, any person who claimed an interest in the attached property or objected to its attachment on the ground that the property was owned by him or her could file an application under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC, and the Executing Court was required to investigate the claim or objection in a summary manner. The wording of Order 21, Rule 58 CPC also did not stipulate that necessarily only after trial could the application be adjudicated by the Executing Court.
The Court noted that earlier, the applicant had sought Letters of Administration for the Will dated 23-06-1999, executed by actor Sivaji Ganesan (father). The petition filed before this Court seeking Letters of Administration was converted into a Testamentary Original Suit, in view of the objections raised by the applicant’s sisters. However, through a Mediator, all the legal heirs of the deceased actor Sivaji Ganesan arrived at an amicable settlement. In the presence of the Mediator, a Joint Memorandum of Compromise was entered between the legal heirs, by which it was agreed that the subject property was absolutely owned by the applicant.
Under the said Memorandum of Compromise the respondent 5 was permitted to stay in the subject property in accordance with the wishes of the late actor Sivaji Ganesan. The Memorandum also stipulated that a sibling could, out of love and affection, release his or her share absolutely in favour of another sibling. The release deed dated 15-07-2024, registered in favour of the applicant, did not create any suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding its genuineness, particularly since the deed was executed solely to implement the Memorandum of Compromise. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Compromise, which was arrived at in the presence of the Mediator, the release deed was executed in favour of the applicant, through which the applicant became the absolute owner of the attached property. The sisters of the applicant had received monetary consideration for releasing their respective shares in the property. Similarly, the respondent 5 /judgment debtor was permitted to reside in the attached property for the duration of his lifetime. Therefore, it was clear that, even prior to the filing of the execution petition on 24-07-2024, the release deed had already been executed in favour of the applicant.
The Court stated that the mode of adjudication in an application under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC was akin to the mode of adjudication adopted in a summary suit under Order 37 CPC or in the rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Only in cases where triable issues were involved did the Court direct the parties to proceed to trial. In the present case, when the documentary evidence placed on record before the Court clearly revealed that the applicant was the owner of the property that had been wrongfully ordered to be attached by the Court, there was no necessity to direct the parties to trial.
The Court highlighted that if the intention of the legislature had been to require the recording of oral evidence for adjudicating every application filed under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC, such a requirement would have been explicitly stipulated within the provision itself. Therefore, merely because an order passed by the Executing Court under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC also amounted to a decree and was appealable, it did not follow that the Executing Court was mandated to adjudicate the application only after trial. As in the case of a leave to defend application in a summary suit, or a rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, so too in the present application under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC, if the Court found, without any doubt, that the applicant was entitled to a decree as prayed for, based on the documentary evidence on record, there was no need to direct the parties to go for trial, since the proceedings were summary in nature.
The Court concluded that it was clear the applicant was undoubtedly the absolute owner of the attached property, and that respondents 2 to 5/judgment debtors had no right, title, or interest in it. Therefore, the application necessarily had to be allowed as prayed for. Accordingly, the application was allowed as prayed for by raising the order of attachment passed by this Court. The applicant was permitted to communicate this order to all the statutory authorities, including the Registration Department, and the said authorities were directed to act accordingly and remove the encumbrance (order of attachment) from their respective records.
[Ganesan Prabhu v. Dhanabakkiam Enterprises, A.No.1582 of 2025, decided on 21-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Applicant: Mr.P.R.Raman, Sr. Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.A.Palaniappan, Mr.G.V.Sridharan
