Music Academy Appeals To Madras High Court DB Against Order Restraining It From Giving Award In MS Subbalakshmi's Name

A division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice P Dhanabal is expected to hear the appeal on December 9 (Monday).

On November 19, Justice G Jayachandran had in an interim order restrained the Music Academy and The Hindu from conferring the “Sangita Kalanidhi M.S.Subbulakshmi Award” to TM Krishna or any other person.

While doing so, the single judge had noted that during her lifetime and through her will, the late singer had forbidden the institution of any award in her name. It had observed that it could not allow any violation of the wish under the guise of commemorating her or honouring her. The single judge had observed that it could not neglect its responsibility to ensure the enforcement of the desire and mandate of the death person. The court further remarked that the best way to honour a departed soul is to honour and respect her wish and not disrespect it.

In the process, the single judge had also dismissed an application filed by the Music Academy challenging the locus of V Shrinivas, MS Subbalakshmi's grandson, to file the suit. It was argued that Subbalakshmi, in her will, had appointed Mr. S. Nagarajan as Executor to carry out her wishes and administer the property as mandated in the Will. Thus, the academy argued that as per Sections 211 and 216 of the Indian Succession Act, the Executor alone could act as the representative of the Testator for all purposes and thus, Shrinivas could not represent the estate of the deceased.

The single judge, however, rejected this contention and held that being a beneficiary under the Will, Shrinivas had an interest in the matter and thus had the locus to maintain the suit.

Challenging this dismissal, the Music Academy, in its appeal, submitted that the judge had failed to note that Shrinivas was just one of the several beneficiaries of the will and did not derive any enforceable right to sustain the suit as a legal representative of the testator. The academy submitted that Shrinivas was not personally affected and as such the suit was barred under Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act.

It is submitted that Sections 211 and 216 of the Indian Succession Act expressly excluded all persons other than the executor/administrator from acting as the legal representative of the testator and a legatee aggrieved by the conduct of the executor could only seek a grant of letters of administration to enable himself to act as the legal representative of the testator.

The academy further submitted that the court had erroneously concluded that the will barred any institution of awards in the name of the late singer while the recital of the will made it clear that there was no bar in respect of conferment of the award.

Case Title: The Music Academy v V Shrinivas and Others

Case No: OSA 235 of 2024