Petitioner sought quashing of an order refusing to cancel a legal heirship certificate issued to another claimed daughter of a deceased man. With both sides raising disputed facts about heirship and a civil suit already filed, the High Court found no error in relegating parties to the Civil Court and dismissed the writ petition with liberty.
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.
W.P.No.4898 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.4898 of 2023 and WMP.No.4914 of 2023
Kasthuri Kailash Pande
..... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Collector, Chennai District, George Town, Chennai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai Revenue Division, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3.The Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.
4.Devi
..... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, praying to call for the entire records
1/6
W.P.No.4898 of 2023
pertaining to the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the 2 nd respondent herein and quash the same consequently direct the 3 rd respondent to issue proper legal-heirship certificate for the petitioner and her brother by following the guidelines issued in letter No.9633/RA-3(2)/2022-4 dated 28.09.2022 and also based upon the representation of the petitioner dated 01.12.2022 within a stipulated period and in accordance with law and grant such suitable order.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Umashankar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
second respondent negativing the request of the petitioner to cancel the legal heirship certificate issued by the 3 rd respondent recognizing 4 th respondent as daughter of one Sathyanarayanan.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the daughter of
deceased Sathyanarayanan, who died as a bachelor and therefore, as class-II
heirs, she is entitled to get legal heirship certificate in her name. However,
2/6
W.P.No.4898 of 2023
the 4 th respondent by producing the fabricated document obtained a legal heirship certificate in her name. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation before the second respondent seeking cancellation of the legal heirship certificate issued in favour of 4 th respondent. The second respondent by impugned order relegated the parties to appropriate Civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The 4 th respondent filed counter affidavit asserting that she
is the daughter of the deceased Sathyanarayanan and in support of her claim, she has also filed various documents in the typed set of papers dated 15.07.2024. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent further submits that the petitioner already instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.526 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif, Alandur, seeking a declaration that legal heirship certificate issued in favour of 4 th respondent was null and void and other consequential relief. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner for the very same relief is not maintainable.
3/6
W.P.No.4898 of 2023
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit in O.S.No.526 of 2022 is not instituted by the petitioner and her signature in the plaint was forged. In view of the claim made by the petitioner as well as 4 th respondent making allegations raising disputed question of facts, with regard to the question who is the legal heir entitled to the estate of the deceased Sathyanarayanan, it cannot be adjudicated upon in this writ proceedings. The second respondent by impugned order rightly relegated the parties to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order.
5. It is made clear that the impugned order passed by the second respondent will not affect the rights of the petitioner as well as 4 th respondent in any way in a properly initiated Civil Proceedings.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4 th respondent is attempting to withdraw the compensation amount deposited before the Civil Court in respect of the property of the deceased which was
4/6
W.P.No.4898 of 2023
acquired by Government. Unless, the dispute with regard to the legal heirs of the deceased is resolved by the Civil Court, it is not desirable to disburse compensation amount to anybody. It is open to the petitioner to obtain necessary interim protection from the Civil Court.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the parties to agitate their rights before the Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.11.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ub To 1.The Collector, Chennai District, George Town, Chennai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai Revenue Division, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3.The Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk,
5/6
W.P.No.4898 of 2023
Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
W.P.No.4898 of 2023
06.11.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer's order relegating the parties to the Civil Court on a disputed claim of legal heirship was erroneous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kasthuri Kailash Pande
The Collector, Chennai District, George Town, Chennai
The Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai Revenue Division, Guindy, Chennai
The Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk, Alandur, Chennai
Devi
S.Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
