Allowed

Subramani.S v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Mar 2024WP(MD)/1946/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a claim for a Legal Heir Certificate. It held that despite the deceased being previously married, the petitioner qualifies as a Class II heir, and directed the respondent to issue the certificate.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16.08.2019 is set aside, and the respondent is directed to issue a legal heirship certificate within three weeks.

Subramani.S Vs the District Collector — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1946 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1946 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1667 of 2021

S.Subramani

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Madurai District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Thiruparam Kuntam Taluk, Madurai, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶12

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 relating to the impugned order in O.Mu.No. 3599/2019/F-1 dated 16.08.2019 issued by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and further direct the second respondent to issue a legal heir certificate to the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thampi

¶14

For Respondents : M/s.K.Christy Theboral Additional Government Pleader

¶15

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

W.P(MD)No.1946 of 2021

¶18

The Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the second respondent dated 16.08.2019 rejecting the claim of issuance of legal heir certificate of the deceased Nagapandian.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner, his brother Nagapandian and sister Kaleeshwari are the children of Santhanakrishnan and Meenakshi, that his mother died on 22.09.1993 and his father died on 28.01.1995, that his brother Nagapandian had also died on 25.05.2018 leaving behind the writ petitioner and sister Kaleeshwari as Class II legal heirs and that the writ petitioner has approached the authorities for legal heir certificate of the deceased Nagapandian, but the same was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner is not a direct legal heir and is only a Class II legal heir.

¶20

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the deceased Nagapandian had married one Chitra Devi and their marriage was dissolved by a divorce decree in H.M.O.P.No.3 of 2003 dated 17.09.2003 on the file of the Family Court,

¶21

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P(MD)No.1946 of 2021

¶23

Ramanathapuram, that the said Chitra Devi had married one Ramachandran and that since the deceased was a married person, the claim for legal heir certificate was rejected by the second respondent.

¶24

The Government has issued a circular dated 29.09.2022 in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in P.Venkatachalam and others Vs. The Tashildar, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Namakkal District and others reported in 2022 (4) CTC 1 , wherein, the Government has issued guidelines for issuance of legal heir certificate. The said Government Order contemplates for the issuance of legal heir certificate of the deceased (in case of unmarried person) will include the following members:-

¶25

Father of deceased

¶26

Mother of deceased

¶27

Brother(s) of deceased

¶28

Sister(s) of deceased

¶29

In the case on hand, the marriage of the deceased Nagapandian

¶30

was dissolved by the competent Court and since the writ petitioner and

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.1946 of 2021

¶34

his sister Kaleeshwari are the only legal heirs of the deceased Nagapandian, the impugned rejection order is legally unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶35

In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the second respondent is hereby set aside. The second respondent is directed to issue legal heirship certificate in terms of G.O.Ms.478, dated 29.09.2022, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶36

25.03.2024

¶37

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No csm To

¶38

The District Collector, Madurai District.

¶39

The Tahsildar, Thiruparam Kuntam Taluk, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P(MD)No.1946 of 2021

¶43

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶44

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P(MD)No.1946 of 2021

¶46

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J

¶47

csm

¶48

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.1946 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1667 of 2021

¶49

Dated : 25.03.2024

¶50

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

Subramani.S v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramani.S v. the District Collector

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

Pappa Vs the District Collector

Murugesan.S Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Sundaravalli Vs the Tahsildar

The Chairman Vs the District Collector

Palanichamy.M.P.M Vs the Dist Collector

I.D.Indira Vs M/s.M.S.R.Health and Educational Society