Madras High Court intervenes after dead person moves Supreme Court [Read Order]

A land dispute pursued in the name of a dead person, which even reached the Supreme Court, recently came under the scanner of the Madras High Court..The peculiar facts of the case prompted Justice PN Prakash to come down heavily on persons abusing the process of law in the name of the dead. As noted in his order,.“The persons who are responsible in conducting such litigations in the name of a dead person and forging documents must be punished by the long arm of the law.”.How it started.The case itself revolves around 10 cents of land in Anna Nagar, Chennai over which multiple claims were made over the years. The petitioner in the instant case, S Kulasekaran, was one among them. He staked his claim based on a sale deed dated August 16, 1969..In 2001, the case went to the Supreme Court, after a civil revision petition allowed by the High Court in favour of Kulasekaran was contested by one S Rajeswari..The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the revision petition in 2004, prompting more litigation before the Chennai City Civil Court and the Madras High Court between Kulasekaran and Rajeswari between 2007 and 2013..In 2013, a single judge of the High Court ruled in Kulasekaran’s favour, recognising his title over the full 10 cents of land..Interestingly, during the pendency of the case, the Court was also informed that Rajeswari had passed away in 2003, in an old age home..However, her death appears to have posed no obstacle to yet another round of litigation before the Supreme Court. In 2013 a Special Leave Petition was filed against the single judge’s ruling by “Rajeswari”..In 2014, the Apex Court also made absolute an interim order of status quo, apparently unaware of a claim that one of the parties named in the case had expired over a decade earlier..The Benami Plot.While these proceedings were pending, Kulasekaran filed a criminal petition before the High Court this year, to inform the Court of an elaborate Benami strategy initiated by one Ratna Raja to obstruct Kulasekaran’s claim to the property under the name of the (now-deceased) Rajeswari..As per an affidavit filed by Kulasekaran this month, Ratna Raj knew the original owner of the property, Nagoor. Nagoor eventually sold off the property to John Nadar. Nadar then sold it to Robert, from whom Kulasekaran bought the property..Kulasekaran submitted that Nagoor and Ratna Raj hatched a plot to take back the property from him, capitalising on Kulasekaran’s absence in Chennai owing to employment in Bangalore..A convoluted series of events eventually allowed Ratna Raj to pass off his illegal interest in the land as “Rajeswari’s” legitimate claim. The real Rajeswari, Kulasekaran submitted, had been looked after by Ratna Raj during her lifetime. Apart from this, she is not connected to the case..Going by Kulasekaran’s affidavit, Rajeswari’s death in 2003 did not stop Ratna Raj from contesting Kulasekaran’s claim over the property in her name. .More surprisingly, the litigation did not cease with Ratna Raj’s death either. As submitted by Kulasekaran,.“Now Ratna Raj is no more. He died recently, but the proceedings continue before all the courts in the name of Rajeswari. Some unknown person impersonating Rajeswari has preferred the two Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court by suppressing the fact of Rajeswari’s death before the Supreme Court. It is very clear that proceedings have been initiated, conducted and contested in the name of dead person since 2003 for nearly 15 years by cheating all the courts successfully. The said cheating continues till today.”.Complying with an interim direction to conduct a preliminary inquiry, the police confirmed that the Rajeswari referred to in the case had died in 2003. Her children told the police that she did not have any property in Anna Nagar. The police also submitted that the son of a “Rathen Raj” son resided at the address provided for Rajeswari..This apart, the Court also took note of a death certificate issued for Rajeswari by the Chennai Corporation in 2003..High Court Verdict.Given the information on record, the Court concluded that Rajeshwari had indeed expired in 2003. It observed,.“… it can be believed that certain persons with vested interest are conducting litigations in the name of a dead person and are freely forging documents and are filing the same before the Supreme Court.“.Justice Prakash also sounded a note of empathy for Kulasekaran, who was constrained to pursue the case for decades owing to the obstructing game played by criminals in this case..“It must also be noted that the petitioner before this Court, having purchased property as early as 50 years ago and at present, running 82 years, is unable to enjoy the fruits of his property … But for the Civil Appeals, the present petitioner would have enjoyed the property which was also supported by the orders of the Court. His attempt to execute the decree obtained by him from a competent Civil Court was thwarted by the obstructing game played by the criminals who are still at large.“.The Court has ordered that the police submit its final report on the issue within six months..Further, it has also directed that the matter be brought to the notice of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, so that appropriate action may be taken with respect to the civil appeals in the case pending before the Supreme Court..Kulasekaran was granted liberty to pursue the criminal complaint as well as execution proceedings to reclaim his land, after the disposal of the civil appeals pending before the Supreme Court..Read the Order: