Allowed

M.Manimekalai v. The Commissioner

Madras HC16 Jul 2024WP(MD)/13139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A woman whose request for an integrated certificate was rejected for lacking a registered adoption deed sought relief under Article 226. The court held that registration is not a precondition to proving adoption, noted the respondent had already issued her a legal heir certificate, set aside the rejection and directed issuance of the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings quashed; second respondent directed to issue the integrated certificate within two weeks.

M.Manimekalai Vs The Commissioner — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13139 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13139 of 2024

¶7

M.Manimekalai ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipal Corporation, Dindigul.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar, Dindigul East, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order by the 2^nd respondent vide Moo.Mu.3061/2024/A1 dated 26.06.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the 2nd respondent to issue Integrated Certificate to the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Perumal For Respondents : Mr.S.Lawrence for R1 : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R2

¶13

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

¶14

1/4

¶15

W.P(MD)No.13139 of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard both sides.

¶18

One Moorthy passed away on 11.05.2021. The case of the petitioner is that she is his adopted daughter. The petitioner sought what is known as integrated certificate. Her request was rejected by the second respondent. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶19

The stand of the second respondent is that the integrated certificate cannot be issued because the petitioner is not having any registered document in her favour. The stand of the second respondent may not be correct. This is for more than one reason. It is well settled that the registered adoption deed is not a condition precedent for establishing the factum of adoption. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2018 (3) CTC 680 (Kamala Rani Vs. Ram Lalit Rai) had held that long duration of time during which a person is treated as adopted cannot be ignored and by itself may in the circumstances carry a presumption in favour of adoption.

¶20

In this case, more than anything else, the second respondent himself had issued the legal heir certificate. Having acknowledged the petitioner as a

¶21

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

¶22

2/4

¶23

W.P(MD)No.13139 of 2024

¶24

daughter of P.Moorthy S/o.Perumal, it is too late in the day to raise any objection at the time of considering issuance of the integrated certificate. The petitioner has enclosed in the typed set of papers the certified document such as school certificate. It is seen therefrom that Moorthy was mentioned as father of the petitioner. The marriage invitation had also been enclosed. It is seen therefrom that Moorthy and his wife Panchavarnam acted as the petitioner's parents.

¶25

In this view of the matter, the impugned proceedings stand set aside. The second respondent is directed to issue a integrated certificate as sought for. This shall be done by the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶27

16.07.2024

¶28

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶29

¶30

The Tahsildar, Dindigul East, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Dindigul.

¶31

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

¶32

3/4

¶33

W.P(MD)No.13139 of 2024

¶34

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶35

rmi

¶36

W.P(MD)No.13139 of 2024

¶37

16.07.2024

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

M.Manimekalai v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Manimekalai v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananth a Vs The Government of Tamilnadu Rep by

Lakshmanan at Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Ganesan Vs Naganathan

Palaniammal .G Vs The Distrit Collector

P.Balasubramanian Vs The Inspector General of Registration

V.Santhanabharathi Vs The District collector