Allowed

P.Ramachandran, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC22 Sept 2022WP(MD)/13047/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order cancelling a legal heirship certificate. The court held that the certificate was correctly issued under intestate succession laws. The cancellation order was quashed, with liberty granted to the third respondent to file a suit in the Civil Court regarding the disputed will.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cancellation order of the legal heirship certificate was set aside and the legal heirship certificate was restored.

P.Ramachandran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13047 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13047 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013

P.Ramachandran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

3.Paulchamy ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. A3/427/2013, dated 13/06/2013 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.PT.S.Narendra Vasan

¶15

For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P(MD)No.13047 of 2013

¶19

For R3 : Mr.R.Murugappan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the first respondent herein, under which he has cancelled the legal heir certificate issued by the second respondent herein.

¶22

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶23

properties belonged to one Poongavana Thevar, who died intestate leaving behind two sons, namely Ramachandran, Punniya Moorthy and a daughter by name, Tamilselvi. The said Punniya Moorthy had passed away leaving behind his wife Karuppayee Ammal. Hence, Karuppayee Ammal got 1/3^rd share in the property. However, the parties have not partitioned their shares among themselves. After the death of Karuppayee Ammal, the other brother of Punniya Moorthy, namely Ramachandran and sister Tamilselvi have applied for legal heirship certificate and a legal heirship certificate was issued by the second respondent herein on 02.05.2007. The third respondent herein is the brother of the deceased Karuppayee Ammal. According to the third

¶24

2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P(MD)No.13047 of 2013

¶27

respondent, a Will was executed by the said Karuppayee Ammal in his favour on 24.11.2008 in Document No.135 of 2008. However, due to pressure from the petitioner and others, the said Will has been illegally cancelled by the said Karuppayee Ammal on 16.04.2009. Hence, he has approached the first respondent herein for cancellation of the legal heirship certificate issued to the writ petitioner and his sister Tamilselvi. According to the third respondent, based upon the Will, dated 24.11.2008, he is the sole legal heir of deceased Karuppayee Ammal.

¶28

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶29

said Will was cancelled by way of a registered document on 16.04.2009 and hence, the third respondent will not have any claim over the property of the said Karuppayee Ammal.

¶30

I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

¶31

From averments, it could be seen that Karuppayee Ammal had died intestate after inheriting a property through her husband Punniya Moorthy. In view of Section 15 (2) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, the petitioner, namely Ramachandran and her sister Tamilselvi will be the

¶32

3/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P(MD)No.13047 of 2013

¶35

class 2 heirs. Hence, the second respondent was right in issuing the legal heirship certificate. However, the said legal heirship certificate has been cancelled by the first respondent herein, citing the objection raised by the third respondent herein. In view of the legal provisions, the order impugned in the writ petition is not sustainable and the same is set aside. However, the third respondent is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court relying upon the alleged Will, dated 24.11.2008 to establish his right over the property in dispute.

¶36

With the above said observations, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶37

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶38

22.09.2022

¶39

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶40

gbg

¶41

4/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P(MD)No.13047 of 2013

¶44

¶45

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶46

2.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District.

¶47

5/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P(MD)No.13047 of 2013

¶50

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶51

gbg

¶52

Order made in W.P(MD)No.13047 of 2013

¶53

Dated: 22.09.2022

¶54

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Ramachandran, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramachandran, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Rm. Yegammai, D/O.M.Ramasamy, Vs the Controller of Examinations

Thilagavathy, Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Ramasamy, Vs the District Collector

M.A. Srirenga Raja Vs the District Collector

M.Anbalagan, Vs the District Registrar

M.Mohamed Ayubkhan Vs the Regional Passport