In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court at Madras questioned an order rejecting a legal heir application because the deceased was a divorcee. The court set aside the rejection and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to respondent for fresh consideration and passing orders with reasons.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.6191 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.6194 of 2023
Josephine Maria Yogamalar
.. Petitioner
Vs.
The Tahsildar, Perambur Taluk Office, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.
.. Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent's order of the rejection dated 09.12.2022 of the legal heir application bearing application No.TN.7202211241315, dated 24.11.2022 submitted through “E seva” online and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to issue the legal heir certificate of petitioner's deceased brother J.John Kingslin within a time frame.
For Petitioner .. Mr.P.Gunaraj For Respondent .. Mr.S.J.Mohammed Sathik Government Advocate
2
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed questioning the order of the respondent/the Tahsildar, Perambur, Chennai, whereby, an application seeking legal heirship by the petitioner herein was returned primarily on the ground that the deceased was a divorcee and therefore, the petitioner cannot be recognised as a Clsss – II legalheir.
“ 8. All these writ petitioners have already applied for legal heirship certificates before the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The following directions are therefore given:
i) Each individual jurisdictional Tahsildar may revive the application already submitted by the applicant herein;
3
ii) If any order had already been passed by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, the said order is set aside and individual Tahsildars are directed to reexamine the entire issue afresh in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.478 dated 22.11.2022 aforementioned.
iii) If the Tahsildar is satisfied, then he/she proceed to grant legal heirship certificate to the individual applicants.
iv) If the Tahsildar entertains any doubt, he/she should not reject the grant of legal heirship certificate but rather must issue notice to the applicant and seek clarification and then pass an order, either way, with reasons.
9. Since these applications before the Tahsildar are pending for a considerable period of time, it would only be appropriate that the individual jurisdictional Tahsildars endeavour to dispose of these applications on or before 31.03.2023 by following due process as stated above.”
impugned in the present writ petition is interfered with and set aide. The
matter is remitted back to Tahsildar, Perambur, Chennai, for fresh
4
consideration and to pass orders with reasons. The Tahsildar may follow the guidelines given in G.O.(MS).No.478 dated 22.11.2022.
02.03.2023
Index:Yes/No ata To The Tahsildar, Perambur Taluk Office, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.
5
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
ata
W.P.No.6191 of 2023
02.03.2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the legal heir application on the ground that the deceased was a divorcee violating the Full Bench judgment in W.P.No.25247 of 2021.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Venkatachalam vs. The TahsildarReferred¶18
W.P.No.25247 of 2021, P.Venkatachalam vs. The Tahsildar, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Namakkal District
Josephine Maria Yogamalar
The Tahsildar, Perambur Taluk Office, Perambur, Chennai
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
