Dismissed¶32

Chandgari Munna v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC9 Jun 2025WP/20375/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, N. Anand Venkatesh J., W.P.No.20375 of 2025 (decided 09.06.2025): challenge to Legal Heirship Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District in favour of deceased's mother without notice to husband; useless formality theory; natural justice/notice; class-I legal heir; Legal Heirship Certificate confers no property right; Section 15 Hindu Succession Act, 1956; guardianship and welfare of children; certiorarified mandamus; writ petition dismissed, no costs; connected W.M.P.Nos.22965 & 22966 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Under the 'useless formality theory', where grant of notice/opportunity would result in the same consequence, the Court will not interfere with an order merely because it was passed without notice. ¶24

Chandgari Munna Vs the Tahsildar — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the Legal Heirship Certificate dated 14.02.2025 issued in favour of the 2nd respondent without notice to the petitioner is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Under the 'useless formality theory', where grant of notice/opportunity would result in the same consequence, the Court will not interfere with an order merely because it was passed without notice.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The 2nd respondent, being the mother of the deceased, is a class-I legal heir; a Legal Heirship Certificate only notifies the names of legal heirs and does not entitle a person to claim any right over property, particularly where there is a challenge by other legal heirs.

¶25

Key takeaways

Rights over the properties of the deceased are governed by Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; the 2nd respondent acquires no right over the property merely because her name is included in the Legal Heirship Certificate, unless she satisfies the requirements of Section 15.ratio¶30
Guardianship of the children is decided only by taking into consideration the welfare of the children; the Legal Heirship Certificate, by itself, will not entitle the 2nd respondent to claim guardianship of the children.ratio¶30
The Court found no ground to interfere with the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the 1st respondent and dismissed the writ petition with no costs, closing the connected W.M.Ps.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (certiorarified mandamus) under Article 226 challenging a Legal Heirship Certificate (No.TN-7202502061510, dated 14.02.2025) issued by the Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk, in favour of the deceased's mother without notice to the widower-petitioner: HELD, (i) applying the 'useless formality theory', interference is unwarranted where notice would have produced the same consequence; (ii) the 2nd respondent, as mother of the deceased, is admittedly a class-I legal heir, and a Legal Heirship Certificate merely notifies the names of legal heirs and confers no right over property, particularly where challenged by other legal heirs; (iii) rights over the deceased's properties are governed by Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and mere inclusion in the certificate confers none; (iv) guardianship is decided on the welfare of the children, and the certificate by itself does not support a guardianship claim. Writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected W.M.P.Nos.22965 & 22966 of 2025 closed.

¶1

W.P.No.20375 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.20375 of 2025 AND W.M.P.Nos.22965 & 22966 of 2025

¶7

Chandgari Munna .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Tahsildar Ponneri Taluk Tiruvallur District

¶10

2.N.Shoba Rani .. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned legal heir certificate issued in favour of the 2^nd respondent vide certificate No.TN-7202502061510 dated 14.02.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh For 1^st Respondent : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.G.Velu Additional Government Pleader

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.20375 of 2025

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Legal Heirship Certificate

¶18

issued by the 1^st respondent in favour of the 2^nd respondent.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.G.Velu, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that he was married to one Vanitha Narasimha and two children were born out of that marriage. Unfortunately, the petitioner's wife committed suicide by hanging on 08.03.2021. After her demise, the petitioner applied for Legal Heirship Certificate and the Legal Heirship Certificate was issued by mentioning the name of the petitioner and two children. While so, the 2^nd respondent had managed to independently make an application before the 1^st respondent and without notice to the petitioner, her name was included in the Legal Heirship Certificate. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.20375 of 2025

¶24

It is true that whenever any civil consequences ensue by virtue of any proceedings, the person who will be aggrieved must be put on notice and he must be given an opportunity. However, there is a theory called “useless formality theory”. This means that even if an opportunity is given, if it is going to result in the same consequence, the Court will not interfere with an order, just because the same took place without notice. In other words, fulfilling the mandate of issuance of notice will only be a useless formality, since consequence will be the same.

¶25

In the case in hand, the 2^nd respondent is admittedly the mother of the deceased. Hence, she will obviously be a class-I legal heir. The Legal Heirship Certificate is given only by notifying the names of the legal heirs and it does not entitle a person to claim right over the property or any other right with the help of Legal Heirship Certificate, more particularly, where there is a challenge by the other legal heirs.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent has included her name in the Legal Heirship Certificate only with a view to claim guardianship over the children and to claim right over the properties.

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.20375 of 2025

¶30

Insofar as the right over properties is concerned, it will be governed by Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, unless and otherwise the 2^nd respondent is able to satisfy the requirements of Section 15 of the said Act, she will not get any right over the property, just because her name has been included in the Legal Heirship Certificate. Insofar as the claim for guardianship is concerned, it is now too well settled that that same is decided only by taking into consideration the welfare of the children. Hence, the Legal Heirship Certificate, by itself, will not entitle the 2^nd respondent to claim for guardianship of the children. Therefore, the apprehension that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is sufficiently answered.

¶31

In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any ground

¶32

to interfere with the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the 1^st respondent and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps are closed.

¶33

09.06.2025

¶34

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

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.20375 of 2025

¶38

¶39