Allowed

M.Kavery Ammal v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC27 Mar 2019WP(MD)/6384/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking issuance and certification of a legal heir certificate for the petitioner's deceased son. The court held that certificates should be issued certifying the petitioner as an heir when the mother-son relationship is undisputed, directing issuance within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Legal heir certificate issued certifying the petitioner as an heir within six weeks of the order date.

M.Kavery Ammal Vs the Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.03.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.6384 of 2019

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2019

M.Kavery Ammal

... Petitioner

1.The Tahsildar, Sankarankoli Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

2.The Revenue Inspector, Karivalamvandanallur, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Periyur Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Tahsildar, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District rejecting petitioner's application for issuance of legal heir certificate of petitioner's deceased son, M.Karuppasamy and to quash the same as unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the first respondent to issue the petitioner legal heirship certificate of her deceased son, M.Karuppasamy within a stipulated time.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.M.Karuppasamy Government Advocate

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner's son M.Karuppasamy passed away on 10.10.2014. The petitioner applied to the first respondent for issuing legal heir certificate. The first respondent took the stand that the son of the petitioner was having two wives namely Guruvammal and Muthulakshmi and therefore it is not possible to issue legal heir https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certificate. This stand of the first respondent is questioned in this writ petition.

¶19

¶20

2.I am of the view that when there is no dispute about the relationship of the writ petitioner with the deceased as mother and son, the first respondent can issue a legal heir certificate certifying that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs. In case, there is any doubt with regard to the status and relationship, the authority can make a note to that effect and issue a certificate. Such a certificate shall be issued within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

3.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Assistant Registrar (T AND P) // True Copy //

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶24

pnn

¶25

¶26

1.The Tahsildar, Sankarankoli Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶27

2.The Revenue Inspector, Karivalamvandanallur, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Village Administrative Officer, Periyur Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

1CC TO MR. Y. KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE SR 57822 1CC TO THE SPL GOVT PLEADER SR 57742 KK 10/04/2019 2P 6C

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.6384 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2019

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

27.03.2019

M.Kavery Ammal v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kavery Ammal v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Angusamy at Angu Vs the Inspector of Police

Rengaraj, S/O.Gurusamy Vs the District Collector

S.Rengaraj, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Reehana Hasmath Vs the Registrar

Scott Christian College, Vs the Member of Secretary