Sivaji Ganesan’s bungalow case: Elder son Ramkumar files affidavit in favour of brother Prabhu

Sivaji Ganesan’s son Ramkumar. File
| Photo Credit: M. Vedhan

Acclaimed thespian ‘Sivaji’ Ganesan alias V.C. Ganesan’s elder son G. Ramkumar has filed an affidavit in the Madras High Court confirming that his brother G. Prabhu is now the sole owner of their father’s sprawling bungalow ‘Anna Illam’ at T. Nagar in Chennai, and that no other sibling has any right whatsoever over the property.

Justice Abdul Quddhose has taken the affidavit on file and listed for hearing on April 15, 2025, Mr. Prabhu’s application to lift an order passed by the High Court on February 10, 2025, attaching a portion of the bungalow due to non-repayment of a loan obtained by Mr. Ramkumar’s son R.G. Dusshyanth.

Following Mr. Prabhu’s application on the ground that he was in no way connected with the loan transaction and hence, his property ought not to have been attached, the judge had on April 7, 2025, directed Mr. Ramkumar to file an affidavit clarifying whether he had any right whatsoever over the property or not.

Accordingly, Mr. Ramkumar filed an affidavit stating that the property was now entirely owned by his younger brother. “I have no right, title, or interest in the property ever since the death of our father Late V.C. Ganesan who had left the property for the exclusive ownership of my brother under his last will and testament dated June 23, 1999,” he said.

The affidavit also read: “I further confirm that neither me nor any of my legal heirs have any claim, right, title, interest or ownership over the attached property Annai Illam and neither will I nor any of my legal heirs have any future claim, right, title or any interest in the property namely Annai Illam.”

‘Hard to believe’

However, the counsel for Dhanabakkiam Enterprises, which had extended the loan and obtained the attachment order, said it was hard to believe that Mr. Ramkumar would have relinquished all his rights in favour of his younger brother even though the property, spread over 22 grounds of land, was worth several crores of rupees.

He argued that the application filed by Mr. Prabhu, under Order 21 Rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), to lift the attachment order could not be decided through summary proceedings and that it could be adjudicated only after the conduct of a full-fledged trial to ascertain the genuineness of the claim made by the siblings.

He relied upon a few previous rulings of the High Court to contend that an attachment order could not be lifted summarily if the transfer of the property concerned had taken place through gratis (by way of release deed executed on the ground of love and affection) and not on receipt of sale consideration.

The counsel also argued that the applicant could not rely upon his father’s reported will without having obtained Letters of Administration from the High Court on the basis of the will.

Prabhu’s counter

Replying to it, Senior Counsel P.R. Raman, representing Mr. Prabhu, said his client had not relied upon the will to claim ownership over the property but referred to it for the limited purpose of explaining the dates and events. He said, a property dispute had arisen between the children of Mr. Ganesan after his death in 2001.

In 2023, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) appointed retired Madras High Court judge N. Kirubakaran to settle the disputes between the two sons and two daughters of the thespian, and the mediator successfully made the siblings arrive at an understanding to divide among themselves the various properties left behind by their father.

As per a joint memorandum of compromise reached between them on November 21, 2023, Annai Illam was allotted in favour of Mr. Prabhu in accordance with his father’s will, and his three siblings executed a release deed in his favour on July 15, 2024, thereby relinquishing all their rights over the bungalow, the senior counsel said.

He stressed that his client was relying upon the joint memo of compromise and the release deed in order to assert his title over the property and urged the court to lift the attachment order by considering that his client was a third party to the loan dispute and hence, his property ought not to have been attached.

After hearing both sides, the judge directed the High Court Registry to list the matter on April 15 for continuation of arguments.