Madras High Court· 31 July 2026

Can a legal heir who has claimed her father's shares before the Company Law Board also claim share in the company's properties?

Mrs.L.Raniammal (died) v. K.C.Saradambal (died)

2026:MHC:3180 · A.S.No.920 of 2012
Coram: Justice N.Sathish Kumar · Justice M.Jothiraman

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.61 Indian Motor Vehicles Act, …📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Having claimed the shares left by her father, and the Company Law Board having directed the company to transmit those shares in her name, she cannot also lay her claim over the property of the company; she has to work out that remedy before the appellate forum alone. The company having been incorporated and registered in the year 1961, claiming shares over the property of the company after 40 years is also not maintainable.

Headnote

Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 — s.61 — Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 — Rule 214 — Partition — Joint family property — Joint family nucleus — Pleadings — Company property — Transfer of permit — Partition — Joint family property — Pleadings as to the joint family nucleus — Held: The plaint must contain pleadings as to when and how the joint family was constituted and as to the joint family nucleus. In the absence of such pleadings, no share can be claimed in properties that stand in the name of others. (¶14, ¶16) Partition — Purchase in the name of the sons — Benefit of the sons alone — Held further: Where sons were allotted properties under an earlier partition deed, a purchase in their name is not joint family property merely because the father stood as guardian for the minors. Such purchase is only for the benefit of the sons alone. (¶15) Partition — Company property — Shareholder cannot claim the property of the company — Held further: A legal heir who has claimed the shares left by her father before the Company Law Board cannot also lay her claim over the property of the company. She has to work out that remedy before the appellate forum alone. (¶17) Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 — s.61 — Transfer of permit — No objection certificate of legal heirs — Held further: Where the permit of a deceased holder was transferred to one legal heir on the no objection certificate of the others, the transfer cannot be treated as one for the benefit of the joint family. Appeal dismissed. (¶20, ¶21, ¶22)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 17Item no.146 was admittedly purchased by the private limited company under Ex.B.1. Further, the Article of Association Ex.A.2 and the balance sheets Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 were also filed. The plaintiff has claimed share in her father’s share. According to the plaintiff, the father had 9000 shares in the company in which she is entitled to 1125 shares. Therefore, having claimed shares of her father, now the plaintiff cannot lay her claim over the property of the company. Admittedly, the plaintiff has already approached the Company Law Board in C.P.No.1006/111/SRB/2007 for transfer of the share left by her father and by order dated 11.06.2008, the Company Law Board directed the company to transmit 1125 shares in the name of the plaintiff. The said order is now under challenge in the appeal before the appellate forum. Such being the position, having claimed right in respect of the shares held by her father, now she cannot lay her claim over the property of the company and therefore, she has to work out her remedy in respect of the shares held by her father in the Company Law Board appellate forum alone. Therefore, we are of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to share in the company’s property.

Paragraph 18Similarly, it is the contention that the bus service is also a family property. It is relevant to note that when Ex.A.27 Annual return filed by the company is carefully perused, it is seen that the company is incorporated and registered on 27.05.1961 onwards. Therefore, without claiming any right over the property, now after several decades, i.e., after 40 years, the plaintiff claiming shares over the property of the company in our view is not maintainable.

Acts & Sections

s.61 Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939Rule 214 Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Mrs.L.Raniammal (died) v. K.C.Saradambal (died) — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Whether a share in properties that stand in the name of others can be claimed without pleading the joint family nucleus?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections