Retired judge's appointment as MGR trust admin upheld
The Bench said the properties bequeathed by MGR under his Will are large in number and valuable.
Chennai: Madras High Court has upheld the appointment of Justice D. Hariparanthaman, a retired Judge of the High Court, to administer the Trust and its properties created by former Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandran (MGR) under his will dated January 18, 1987.
Dismissing appeals filed by Latha Rajendran and Geetha Madhumohan challenging order of a single judge dated November 24, 2016 appointing Justice D. Hariparanthaman, the Division Bench comprising Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Abdul Quddhose, said “We are in agreement with the finding of the single judge that there is no consensus even amongst the beneficiaries and there is also a strong objection for the appointment of Latha Rajendran as the Interim Administrator”.
The bench said “We are of the view that no useful purpose will be served if one of the parties to the dispute is appointed as an Interim Administrator. It will only lead to further litigation and multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, in the interest of all the parties to the dispute as well as the beneficiaries and to safeguard the laudable objects of the MGR under his Will dated January 18, 1987 that a Court appointed Administrator administers and manages the affairs of the Estate and the Trust. We find no infirmity in the order dated November 24, 2016, passed by the single judge.”
On November 24, 2016, Justice M.M. Sundresh appointed Justice Hariparanthaman as an administrator after hearing a batch of petitions filed by MGR's relatives including Latha Rajendran, M.C. Chandran and M.Swaminathan and others. Challenging this, appeals were filed.
The Bench said the properties bequeathed by MGR under his Will are large in number and valuable. “They need to be protected from misappropriation / diversion. The noble and laudable objects of the Trust, which includes the establishment and administration of a deaf and dumb school, must be safeguarded. There is, according to us, no error of law and/or fact, which would have us to interdict the impugned judgment.”