Allowed

Mrs.Indirani, v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC22 Oct 2021WP/27766/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of her application for a Legal Heir Certificate. The High Court held that since a competent civil court had previously decreed the status of heirs, the Tahsildar was obligated to consider that decree. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Tahsildar to conduct a fresh inquiry on merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order bearing No.A6/6003/2013 dated 17.07.2013 is quashed. The petitioner is given liberty to submit a fresh application. The Tahsildar is directed to conduct an enquiry and pass orders o

Mrs.Indirani, Vs the Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22-10-2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

WP No.27766 of 2013

¶6

Mrs.Indirani

¶7

 ...Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Thasildar,

¶10

 Fort Tondairpet Taluk,

¶11

Chennai – 600 003.

¶12

2.A.Queen Mary

¶13

3.A.Lelina (Minor),

¶14

 Represented by Mother and Natural Guardian,

¶15

 A.Queen Mary ...Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned
proceedings of the first respondent signed on 17.07.2013 bearing
No.A6/6003/2013 and quash the same and further issued direction
to the first respondent to issue Legal Heir Certificate to the
petitioner.

¶17

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Prabhakaran

¶18

For Respondent-1 :Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Government Advocate.

¶19

For Respondents-2&3 :Mr.M.G.Harikrishnan

¶20

The order of rejection of the application filed by the
petitioner for grant of Legal Heir Certificate, is under
challenge in the present writ petition.

¶21

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

¶22

2. The petitioner Smt.Indirani claims that she is the
legally wedded wife of the deceased Mr.Alexendar and the
marriage between the petitioner and the deceased Mr.Alexendar
was solemnised on 18.06.1986. The marriage between the
petitioner and the deceased Mr.Alexendar was registered.

¶23

3. After the death of her husband, the petitioner
submitted an application for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate.
During the relevant point of time, the second respondent claimed
herself as the legally wedded wife of late Mr.Alexendar. The
third respondent is the daughter born from and out of the
relationship between the said late Mr.Alexendar and the second
respondent.

¶24

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
second respondent herself admitted the fact that she was a
Concubine of the deceased Mr.Alexendar.

¶25

5. May that it be, the respondents 2 and 3 instituted a
civil suit in O.S.No.114 of 2009. The Competent Civil Court
dismissed the suit against the second respondent-first plaintiff
Smt.A.Queen Mary and decreed the suit partly as against the
second plaintiff. In other words, the second plaintiff is
recognised as a daughter of late Mr.Alexendar and Smt.A.Queen
Mary.

¶26

6. Based on the decree passed by the Civil Court, an
application is made for the issuance of Legal Heir Certificate.
However, the Tahsildar rejected the same without considering any
of the documents and by merely stating that the second and third
respondents are claiming as the wife and daughter of the
deceased Mr.Alexendar.

¶27

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the
issues raised are adjudicated before the Competent Civil Court
of Law and a decree is also passed. The suit itself was
instituted for the relief of declaration to declare that the
plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Mr.Alexendar and
for mandatory injunction.

¶28

8. When the issues are framed in this regard by the Civil
Court and adjudications were completed and decree is passed, the

¶29

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

¶30

said decree is to be considered by the Tahsildar for the purpose
of issuance of Legal Heir Certificate.

¶31

9. In view of the fact that the petitioner has submitted
the copy of the decree and judgment passed in the civil suit,
the Tahsildar has to reconsider the application submitted by the
petitioner. Further, it is to be clarified whether any appeal
suit is filed against the judgment and decree passed in the
civil suit.

¶32

10. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is at
liberty to submit a fresh application along with all necessary
documents to the first respondent-Tahsildar, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
receipt of any such application along with relevant documents
from the petitioner, the first respondent-Tahsildar is directed
to conduct an enquiry and consider all the documents on merits
and pass appropriate orders regarding issuance of Legal Heir
Certificate, within a period of eight weeks therefrom. In view
of the said directions, the impugned order passed by the first
respondent in proceedings bearing No.A6/6003/2013 dated
17.07.2013 is quashed.

¶33

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar (CCC)

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

Svn

¶39

To

¶40

The Thasildar,

¶41

Fort Tondairpet Taluk,
Chennai – 600 003.

¶42

+1cc to Mr.D.Kanagasundaram, Advocate SR.No.54552
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.No.55119

¶43

W.P.No.27766 of 2013

¶44

GSM(CO)

¶45

RVM(10/11/2021)

¶46

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

Mrs.Indirani, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Indirani, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ganesh Vs The Revenue Officer

P.Nagarajan, Vs the Executive Officer

T.v.Amasalingam Vs The District Collector

Mr.S.Santhanagopal Vs Union of India

S.Shankar, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Selvi Vs the Chief Manager