Sivaji Ganesan’s bungalow case: Madras High Court directs his elder son Ramkumar to file an affidavit

Sivaji Ganesan. File
| Photo Credit: K.G. Santhosh

The Madras High Court on Monday (April 7, 2025) directed renowned thespian ‘Sivaji’ Ganesan alias V.C. Ganesan’s elder son G. Ramkumar to file an affidavit before the court by Tuesday (April 8, 2025) by affirming on oath that he had no right whatsoever over his father’s sprawling bungalow ‘Annai Illam’ located at T. Nagar in Chennai.

Justice Abdul Quddhose issued the direction after the thespian’s younger son G. Prabhu claimed to be the sole owner of the bungalow since July 2024 and contended it ought not to have been attached by the court for recovery of a loan attributable to his elder brother and the latter’s son R.G. Dusshyanth.

The High Court had in February this year ordered the attachment of 13,310 sq. ft. out of the total extent of 53,240 sq. ft. of the bungalow pursuant to a petition filed by a private company for recovering a loan that it had extended to Mr. Dusshyanth’s film production firm for producing a movie titled Jagajala Killadi.

The attachment order was passed since the company had claimed that Mr. Ramkumar too had affixed his signatures in the loan agreement and therefore, the court must help recover the dues to the tune of ₹9.39 crore by attaching and auctioning one-fourth of his share in his father’s bungalow.

Pursuant to the attachment order, an entry to that effect was also made in the encumbrance certificate of the property by the T. Nagar Sub Registrar. Immediately, thereafter, Mr. Prabhu rushed to the court for lifting the attachment order on the ground that he was the sole owner of the bungalow at present.

Senior counsel P.R. Raman, representing Mr. Prabhu, told the court that the properties of Mr. Ganesan were partitioned between his two sons and two daughters and that all three siblings had executed a release deed on July 15, 2024, relinquishing their three-fourth share in favour of his client.

Since Mr. Prabhu was the sole owner of the bungalow at present, the loan liability of his elder brother could not be fastened on the younger brother, Mr. Raman claimed. After hearing him, the judge directed Mr. Ramkumar to file an affidavit asserting that he does not hold any right whatsoever in the property.