Dismissed

Vignesh v. The State of TamilNadu Rep by

Madras HC22 Nov 2021WP/24747/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged a legal heir certificate issued in favor of a third respondent as the deceased's widow. Finding the dispute regarding the deceased's wife was a question of fact and civil suits were pending, the Court dismissed the petition granting liberty to seek remedies in the competent civil forum.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent civil forum; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Vignesh Vs The State of TamilNadu Rep by — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:22.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.NO.24747 of 2021 and W.M.P.NO.26025 of 2021

Vignesh

...Petitioner

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by

¶10

Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner,

¶11

Disaster Management,

¶12

Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶13

Tahsildar, Ariyalur Town & District.

¶14

Anbukarasi

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the legal heir certificate number TN7202001211327 dated 03.02.2020 issued by the 2^nd Respondent to the 3^rd Respondent on account of the death of Mr. Ganaruban and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Jayavel

¶18

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr. M. R. Gokulakrishnan, Government Advocate

¶19

For 3^rd Respondent : No Appearance

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the legal heir certificate issued by the 2^nd respondent in favour of the 3^rd respondent on account of the death of the petitioner's father and quash the same.

¶22

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

¶23

Mr. M.R.Gokulakrishnan, Government Advocate takes notice the Respondents 1 & 2.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that his mother namely Senthamarai is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner's father namely Gnanaruben who was former Government Servant and their marriage was solemnized on 29.11.1993 and the same was dissolved by decree in HMOP No.5/1997 on 18.03.1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Ariyalur. While being so, after the demise of said Gnanaruben, the 3^rd respondent herein being a widow of a police staff had obtained the legal heir certificate in her favour from the 2^nd respondent claiming that she is the wife of said Gnanaruben which led to the filing of suits and the same are pending. Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent had filed W.P(MD)13731 of 2020 on the file of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking disbursal of the family pension wherein the petitioner is alleged to be the son of one Chinnasamy. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking the above relief.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's mother Senthamarai is the legally wedded wife of his father Gnanaruben and the legal heir of said Gnanaruben are the petitioner and his mother and they are legally entitled to receive the family pension after the demise of her husband. However, the 3^rd Respondent herein is falsely claiming that she is a legal heir of said Gnanaruben who is the father of the petitioner and had obtained the legal heir certificate from the 2^nd respondent and same is liable to be quashed.

¶26

On the above contentions, this Court heard the learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶27

Though the submissions as above are made by the learned counsel on the either side, however the issuance of the legal heir certificate in favour of the 3^rd respondent being a disputed question of fact, taking into consideration that suits are pending between the parties with regard to the legal heirs of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Since the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, this Writ Petition is dismissed and liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent civil forum in accordance with law.

¶28

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

¶29

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

NHS

¶35

¶36

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Disaster Management, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶37

The Tahsildar, Ariyalur Town & District. +1 CC to Mr.S.Jayavel, Advocate sr 60354 +1 CC to The Government Pleader sr 60648.

¶38

W.P.NO.24747 of 2021 and W.M.P.NO.26025 of 2021

¶39

SVI(CO) SP(20/01/2022)

¶40

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

Vignesh v. The State of TamilNadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vignesh v. The State of TamilNadu Rep by

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

Jangatti Venkateswaralu Vs Union of India through

P.Balakrishnan Vs The Regional Passport Officer -

M/s.Om Ganesha Metal Drums Vs The General Manager

Dr.Aslam Yosuff Vs The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services

A.Stalin Vs The Executive Engineer

K.Meeta Vs The Tahsildar