In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has lifted the attachment of property belonging to late legendary actor Sivaji Ganesan. The attachment was earlier ordered by the court in connection with an execution petition filed against Ganesan’s grandson, Dushyanth Ramkumar, and their production house, Eshan Productions, over a financial dispute linked to the movie "Jagajaala Killadi."
The order was passed by Justice Abdul Quddhose, who allowed an application filed by Ganesan Prabhu, the elder son of the iconic actor. Prabhu argued that the attached property did not belong to his nephew, Dushyanth, or to the other judgment debtors, but was his own, backed by a valid release deed signed by all legal heirs of Sivaji Ganesan.
“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 stated.
The case stemmed from a financial agreement signed in December 2017, where Dhanabakkiam Enterprises provided a loan of ₹4 crore to Eshan Productions for the production of the film “Jagajaala Killadi.” As per the contract, the loan was to be repaid within six months or seven days prior to the film’s release, whichever came first. However, despite the completion of the film, Eshan Productions delayed its release, and the cheques issued for repayment were dishonoured.
Subsequently, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for repayment, but Eshan Productions failed to meet the terms. This led Dhanabakkiam Enterprises to approach the Madras High Court, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. Justice T. Ravindran, a retired judge, was appointed as the arbitrator and later ruled in favor of Dhanabakkiam Enterprises. Based on this arbitral award, the court ordered attachment of the property in question.
Challenging the attachment, Prabhu submitted that he was the rightful owner, having acquired the property after the other legal heirs signed a release deed in his favor. He also pointed out that the release deed was presented for registration even before the attachment order was passed, establishing his lawful ownership.
Opposing this, Dhanabakkiam Enterprises argued that it was suspicious for all the legal heirs to relinquish their rights to a property of such high value, and suggested that the matter should be decided in a full-fledged trial rather than a summary proceeding.
The court, however, observed that Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a third party to object to property attachment if they can prove ownership. The court clarified that such applications are usually decided in a summary manner unless complex disputes require a trial.
The judge further highlighted that the judgment debtors, including Dushyanth Ramkumar, had filed affidavits clearly stating they had no claim over the property, and would not assert any rights in the future. The court concluded that the ownership documents produced by Prabhu, including the joint Memorandum of Compromise and the registered release deed, were sufficient to establish his title.
The court also noted the release deed was presented for registration on July 15, 2024, prior to the execution petition being filed on July 24, 2024. Under Section 47 of the Registration Act, the date of presentation for registration is considered the effective date of ownership, thus affirming Prabhu’s legal title.
Rejecting the objections raised by Dhanabakkiam Enterprises, the court ruled that the property was wrongly attached and ordered the attachment to be lifted, allowing Prabhu to notify all statutory authorities to remove the encumbrance from their records.
The case was argued by Senior Counsel Mr. P.R. Raman for the applicant, assisted by Mr. S. Sandesh Saravanan, while Mr. A. Palaniappan and Mr. G.V. Sridharan represented the respondents.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that a rightful owner, supported by valid legal documentation, can seek relief from wrongful property attachment, even during the execution of a court decree.
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
Case No: A.No.1582 of 2025 in E.P.No.68 of 2024
