S.Muruganantham Vs the District Collector

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in Ref: legal heirs certificate No.TN-720221205848 dated 13.12.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to delete the name of Kumaran & Vasudevan in the legal heir certificate as per the petitioners representation dated 29.04.2024 within a time limit fixed by this Court.

¶17

1/9

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.19147 of 2024

¶20

For petitioners : Mr.A.Edinbrough For RR1 & 2 : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.Balamurugan Government Advocate For RR3 & 4 : Mr.A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan Special Government Pleader

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned

¶23

proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 13.12.2022, wherein the names of the respondents 3 and 4 were included in the Legal Heirship Certificate that was issued after the demise of T.Sembu, S/o.Thambiran.

¶24

The case of the petitioners is that their father T.Sembu married Samundeeswari and through the wedlock, the petitioners were born. The said T.Sembu died on 15.12.1999, leaving behind Samundeeswari and the petitioners as his legal heirs. After the demise of T.Sembu, the petitioners' mother submitted an application before the Tahsildar for Legal Heirship Certificate. The Tahsildar rejected the application through proceedings dated 15.02.2000, on the ground that T.Sembu had two wives. The petitioners' mother filed O.P.No.564 of 2007 seeking for Succession Certificate and the said petition came to be allowed by this Court, by order dated 09.06.2008. While so,

¶25

2/9

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.19147 of 2024

¶28

Legal Heirship Certificate has been issued by the 2^nd respondent by including the names of the respondents 3 and 4, who were not born to T.Sembu. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court.

¶29

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The 2^nd respondent has taken a stand that on enquiry, it came to light that T.Sembu had three wives. The petitioners were born to the 3^rd wife. The respondents 3 and 4 were born to the 2^nd wife viz ., Maragadam. That apart, children were also born from the first marriage. Hence, while issuing Legal Heirship Certificate, the names of all the children were mentioned in the Legal Heirship Certificate. The names of the predeceased were also mentioned in the Legal Heirship Certificate.

¶30

The respondents 3 and 4 have also filed a counter and they have taken a stand that the said T.Sembu had in fact married their mother and he later developed a relationship with the mother of the petitioners. A divorce petition was filed by the mother of the respondents 3 and 4 on the ground of adultery in O.P.No.530 of 1984 and the petition was allowed through an ex parte order dated 18.11.1985. The respondents 3 and 4 have taken a further stand that they had a sister named Jayanthi who died on 08.05.2000. Thus, the respondents

¶31

3/9

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.19147 of 2024

¶34

3 and 4 have justified their names being included in the Legal Heirship Certificate.

¶35

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶36

In the considered view of this Court, the above said T.Sembu seems

¶37

to have married three women and there were children out of the three relationships. The names of all the children were mentioned in the Legal Heirship Certificate, which was issued after conducting an enquiry. This Court has repeatedly held that Legal Heirship Certificate does not decide the entitlement of the persons whose names have been included and such entitlement will be decided as per the personal law that governs the parties. The Legal Heirship Certificate merely provides for the relationship between the deceased and the persons whose names are found in the Legal Heirship Certificate.

¶38

In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the Legal Heirship Certificate that has been issued by the 2^nd respondent. If the petitioners are seriously contesting the paternity of the

¶39

4/9

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.19147 of 2024

¶42

respondents 3 and 4, they must only approach the competent civil Court and work out their remedy. Such an exercise can neither be entertained by the Tahsildar nor can it be considered by this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is left open to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court to work out their remedy.

¶43

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

No costs.

¶45

28.07.2025 (3/3)

¶46

gya Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶47

To 1.The District Collector Singaravelar Maligai Chennai

¶48

2.The Tahsildar Purasaiwakkam Chennai

¶49

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶50

gya

¶51

5/9

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.19147 of 2024

W.P.No.19147 of 2024

28.07.2025

(3/3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶58

DATED : 11.08.2025

¶59

CORAM

¶60

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶61

6/9

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.No.19147 of 2024

¶64

W.P.No.19147 of 2024

¶65

1.S.Muruganantham 2.S.Ulaganayagi

¶66

.. Petitioners

¶67

Vs.

¶68

1.The District Collector Singaravelar Maligai Chennai

¶69

2.The Tahsildar Purasaiwakkam Chennai

3.S.Vasudevan

4.S.Kumaran

.. Respondents

(RR3 & 4 impleaded vide order dt.21.7.2025 made in W.M.P.4370 of 2025 in W.P.No.19147 of 2024)

¶74

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in Ref: legal heirs certificate No.TN-720221205848 dated 13.12.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to delete the name of Kumaran & Vasudevan in the legal heir certificate as per the petitioners representation dated 29.04.2024 within a time limit fixed by this Court.

¶75

For petitioners : Mr.A.Edinbrough For RR1 & 2 : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.Balamurugan Government Advocate For RR3 & 4 : Mr.A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan

¶76

7/9

¶77

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

¶78

W.P.No.19147 of 2024

¶79

O R D E R

¶80

The learned counsel for the petitioners wants to reargue the case. The

¶81

same cannot be done under the caption 'for being mentioned'. Therefore, no further orders can be passed in this caption. However, it is seen that the counsel for R3 and R4 who are private respondents have been designated as the Special Government Pleader and the same shall be removed.

¶82

11.8.2025

¶83

kp To 1.The District Collector Singaravelar Maligai Chennai 2.The Tahsildar Purasaiwakkam Chennai

¶84

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶85

kp

¶86

8/9

¶87

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