Former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s nephew J. Deepak has vehemently opposed a civil suit filed by two All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) cadre to grant them a Letter of Administration, under the Administrators General Act of 1963, to administer the movable and immovable properties left behind by her.
Appearing before a Division Bench of Justices N. Kirubakaran and Abdul Quddhose, his counsel said, Mr. Deepak himself had instituted legal proceedings to claim right over the properties in his capacity as the second class legal heir since Jayalalithaa had no immediate legal heirs and she had died intestate on December 5, 2016.
However, the counsel for the plaintiffs K. Pugazhenthi and P. Janakiraman, belonging to the North Chennai unit of the political party, contested the arguments advanced on behalf of Jayalalithaa’s nephew and claimed that they had every right to administer the properties which, according to their estimate, was worth ₹ 931.41 crore. Since the counsel on both sides could not complete their arguments due to paucity of time, the judges adjourned further hearing of the case to Friday.
In their plaint, the plaintiff had urged the court to appoint an Administrator General and an official trustee to manage the estate of the deceased leader. Claiming that third parties were attempting to usurp the properties, the petitioners had contended that it was essential on the part of the court to be a custodian of the properties left behind by the former Chief Minister.
Finding force in their submissions, the Bench led by Mr. Justice Kirubakaran had on November 16 suo motu included Jayalalithaa’s nephew as well as niece J. Deepa as parties to the suit and ordered issuance of notice to them through all modes including e-mail and WhatsApp so that they enter appearance.
“As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, appropriate orders have to be passed to safeguard the vast properties left behind by the late Chief Minister. At the same time, the said Class II legal heirs have to be made as parties to the proceedings,” the judges had said in their interim order.
