Madras High Court Lifts Attachment Of Late Actor Sivaji Ganesan's Property In Execution Petition Against Grandson

Justice Abdul Quddhose ordered lifting the attachment on a plea filed by Ganesan Prabhu, the actor's elder son, who argued that the property was wrongly attached and that he was the absolute owner of the property. Finding merit in his argument, the court allowed his application and raised the earlier attachment. The court permitted Prabhu to communicate the order to the concerned authorities who could then act accordingly.

“For the foregoing reasons, it is clear the applicant [Prabhu] is undoubtedly the absolute owner of the attached property and the respondents 2 to 5/judgment debtors do not have any right, title or interest in it and therefore, necessarily, this application will have to be allowed as prayed for. Accordingly, this application is allowed as prayed for by raising the order of attachment passed by this Court in E.P.No.68 of 2024, dated 10.02.2025. The applicant is permitted to communicate this order to all the statutory authorities which includes the registration department, and the said authorities are directed to act accordingly and remove the encumbrance (order of attachment) from their respective records,” the court said.

The financial dispute between the parties arose from a contract that was entered into for producing the movie titled “Jagajaala Killadi” in December 2017. Eshan Productions had approached the petitioner company for financing the movie, and as per the agreement, Dhanabakkiam agreed to disburse a sum of Rs. 4,00,00,000 as a loan to Eshan Productions.

Dhanabakkiam had argued that as per the terms of the agreement, Eshan Productions had consented to repay the loan amount within 6 months from the date of agreement or 7 days before the release of the film, whichever is earlier. However, even after the movie's production was completed, the production company deliberately delayed the release of the film, and all the cheques issued by the company towards repayment was dishonoured.

Following this, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the parties for repayment but Eshan Productions deliberately defaulted to adhere to its commitment as per the MoU. Thus, Dhanabakkiam had approached the Madras High Court for appointing an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, and the court had appointed Justice T Ravindran (retired judge) to adjudicate the issues between the parties. The arbitral award was in favour of Dhanabakkiam. Following this, Dhanabakkiam had approached the High Court to execute the arbitral award in which the ocurt ordered attachment.

Seeking to raise this attachment, Prabhu argued that he was the absolute owner of property. he submitted that a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the legal heirs of the late actor and a release deed was executed by the remaining legal heirs in favour of Prabhu. He added that since the release deed was registered even before the attachment order, he has an exclusive bonafide title over the property and as such, the attachment was bad in law.

Raising objections to this, Dhanabakkiam argued that it was highly unlikely that the other legal heirs would give up their rights in the property, which had an extent of 22 grounds and would fetch several crores of rupees. It was argued that whether Prabhu had Bonafide title could be proved only in trial and not through a summary proceeding.

The court noted that any person who claimed an interest in the attached property or objects to attachment on the ground that he is the owner of the property, can file an application under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC. The executing court would then investigate the claim or objection in a summary manner. The court noted that Order 21 Rule 58 did not mandate that the application could be adjudicated by the court only after trial.

The court also noted that the judgment debtors – Dusshyanth, Abhirami Dussyanth and Ramkumar Ganesan had filed affidavits stating that they did not have any right/title over the attached property. Thus, noting that Prabhu had proved his ownership, the court allowed his application and lifted the attachment.

Counsel for Applicant: Mr. P. R. Raman, Sr. Counsel for Mr. S. Sandesh Saravanan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. Palaniappan, Mr. G. V. Sridharan

Case Title: Ganesan Prabhu v. M/s. Dhanabakkiam Enterprises and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 144

Case No: A.No.1582 of 2025 in E.P.No.68 of 2024