A/66/2026 of B. Vikram Vs M. Sai Prasad and 10 others

A.No.66 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE A No. 66 of 2026 in T.O.S. No. 44 of 2008 B. Vikram S/o.B.Brahmaiah, No.41, First Floor, Modern Flats, Janakiram Colony, 2nd Main Road, Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049. ..Applicant(s) Vs 1. M. Sai Prasad Son of Late A.K.MEGAVARNAm (DECD), NO.29, DHAYALU NAGAR, KOLATHUR, CHENNAI - 600 099. V.Kumari (Deceased) 2. S.Vimala alias Bagyalakshmi No.176 B, Kamarajar Nagar, Press Quarters, Tondaiarpet, Chennai - 600 019 3. R.Pushpa alias Bababai Wife of Rajendra Babu No.32, Achamma Kandigai Iii Street, Arakonam, Vellore Ditrict. 4. A.Sathyabama Wife of Kuppuraj No.25, Police Lane, Thiruvannamalai District. 5. S.Latha W/o.Late Sathyanarayanan, 6. S.Mohanapriya D/o.Late Sathyanarayanan, 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.66 of 2026 7. S.Hemaa D/o.Late Sathyanarayanan, R5 to R7 All are residing at No.22/25, Dhayalu Nagar First Street, Kolathur, Chennai - 99. 8. K.Jothi W/o.Karunanidhi, No.35, Vetrivel Nagar, Nasarapettai, Little Kanchipuram - 631 503. 9. S.Lakshmi W/o.Senthilkumar, D/o.V.Kumari, No.37/43, V.P.Koil Street, Palanipet, Arakkonam - 631 002. 10.V.Govindarajalu S/o.Late Venkatesan, No.100, Geetha Nagar, Vadamambakkam Nagar, Arakkonam - 631 003. 11.Padmavathi W/o.Raja, No.14, B.K.Nagar, Mosur Road, Arakkonam - 631 002. ..Respondent(s) To implead the Applicant as 12th Defendnt in T.O.S.N.44 of 2008. For Applicant(s): M/S.K. Indur Priya Mohana M For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Suresh 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.66 of 2026 ORDER This application has been filed to implead the applicant as 12th defendant in T.O.S.No.44 of 2008 on the basis of an alleged sale agreement dated 17.06.2005 said to have been entered into between the applicant and the sons of the deceased/testator in respect of the suit property. The applicant woul d contend that he paid substantial advance amounts and therefore has an enforceable and caveatable interest in the property. 2. The contesting respondents oppose the application contending that the applicant is a third party to the testamentary proceedings; that a probate proceeding is confined to the proof and genuineness of the Will; and that any claim founded on an agreement of sale can only be worked out in appropriate independent proceedings and not in the testamentary suit. In support of his submission , he relied on NAK Engineering Company Pvt.Ltd. v Tarun Keshrichnad Shah and Ors [ 2026 INSC 8 ] and V.Mohanan vs Estate of E.Narayanan [ 2008 (4 )CTC 110 ] 3. This Court finds merit in the said objection. In a testamentar y original suit, the question for consideration is the due execution and genuineness of the Will and 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.66 of 2026 the entitlement of the propounder to probate/letters of administrati on. A person claiming under an alleged agreement of sale entered into with some of the legal heirs does not, by that circumstance alone, become a necessary or prope r party to the testamentary adjudication. The applicant’s claim, even if a ssumed for the present, is a distinct civil claim against the persons with whom he c laims to have contracted, and the same cannot enlarge the scope of the probate proceedings. 4. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not ma de out a case for impleadment in T.O.S.No.44 of 2008. 5. Accordingly, A.No.66 of 2026 is dismissed. No costs. It is however open to the applicant to work out his remedies, if any, in the manner known to law before the appropriate forum. No costs. 21-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AY 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.66 of 2026 DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. AY A No. 66 of 2026 in T.O.S. No. 44 of 2008 21-04-2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis