Sivaji Ganesan’s bungalow case: Elder son Ramkumar files affidavit in favour of brother Prabhu

Sivaji Ganesan’s elder son G. Ramkumar has filed an affidavit in the Madras High Court confirming that his brother G. Prabhu is now the sole owner of their father’s sprawling bungalow ‘Anna Illam’ at T. Nagar in Chennai

Acclaimed thespian ‘Sivaji’ Ganesan alias V.C. Ganesan’s elder son G. Ramkumar has filed an affidavit in the Madras High Court confirming that his brother G. Prabhu is now the sole owner of their father’s sprawling bungalow ‘Anna Illam’ at T. Nagar in Chennai, and that no other sibling has any right whatsoever over the property.

Justice Abdul Quddhose has taken the affidavit, filed through senior counsel P.R. Raman, on file and listed for hearing on April 15, 2025, Mr. Prabhu’s application to lift an order passed by the High Court on February 10, 2025, attaching a portion of the bungalow due to non-repayment of a loan obtained by Mr. Ramkumar’s son R.G. Dusshyanth.

Following Mr. Prabhu’s application on the ground that he was in no way connected with the loan transaction and hence, his property ought not to have been attached, the judge had on April 7, 2025, directed Mr. Ramkumar to file an affidavit clarifying whether he had any right whatsoever over the property or not.

Accordingly, Mr. Ramkumar filed an affidavit stating that the property was now entirely owned by his younger brother. “I have no right, title, or interest in the property ever since the death of our father Late V.C. Ganesan who had left the property for the exclusive ownership of my brother under his last will and testament dated June 23, 1999,” he said.

The affidavit also read: “I further confirm that neither me nor any of my legal heirs have any claim, right, title, interest or ownership over the attached property Annai Illam and neither will I nor any of my legal heirs have any future claim, right, title or any interest in the property namely Annai Illam.”

However, the counsel for Dhanabakkiam Enterprises, which had extended the loan and obtained the attachment order, said it was hard to believe that Mr. Ramkumar would have relinquished all his rights in favour of his younger brother even though the property, spread over 22 grounds of land, was worth several crores of rupees.

He argued that the application filed by Mr. Prabhu, under Order 21 Rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), to lift the attachment order could not be decided through summary proceedings and that it could be adjudicated only after the conduct of a full-fledged trial to ascertain the genuineness of the claim made by the siblings.