Jayanthi v. The Tahsildar

2024:MHC:2527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH & WMP.Nos.16392 & 16394 of 2024 Jayanthi .... Petitioner Vs 1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Villupuram Taluk and District.

2.K.Jayaraman .... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the 1st respondent relating to the issuance of legal heirship certificate in Pa.Mu.(A2)/1300/2023 dated 12.01.2024 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnasamy For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan (R1) Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.U.Bharanidharan 1/4

Additional Government Pleader Mr.Antony Jesus (R2)

O R D E R

The petitioner was married to one Paramasivam on 17.03.2002. Prior thereto, the said Paramasivam was married to one K.Vijaya Kumari and their marriage was dissolved in HMOP.No.18 of 2001 by order dated 30.04.2001 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

2. The petitioner's husband passed away on 16.05.2017. The couple had no issues and the petitioner claims to be the sole legal heir of her husband. She had applied for legal heirship certificate that had been issued under proceedings in Pa.Mu.(A2)/9206/2017 dated 16.10.2017. In the course of the issuance of that certificate, an objection had been made by R2, who was the nephew of Paramasivam and his objections had also been duly considered while issuing certificate dated 16.10.2017 holding the petitioner to be the sole legal heir of Paramasivam.

3. While so, and after a lapse of 7 years, R2 has made an application before R1 for cancellation of the earlier certificate and issuance of a fresh certificate including his name as well. Such certificate has been issued on 12.01.2024 including the name of R2 as well as his 2/4

sisters Manimegalai and Kalaiselvi.

4. To be noted that R2 and his two sisters would only constitute Class-II legal heirs and the legal position as per G.O.(Ms.) No.110 dated 13.03.2024 is that, where one spouse passes away without issues, it is the surviving parents and spouse who will constitute his Class-I legal heirs.

5. That apart, the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. In fact, R1, in the impugned order states that he is treating this case as a special case and passing orders contrary to the normal/regular procedure, as the petitioner is medically indisposed and needs assistance. It is a mystery as to where from he has formed this impression.

6. The petitioner has categorically denied any medical disability and confirms that she is keeping good health. She denies the observations in the impugned order as factually incorrect. There is some merit in her submission as the impugned order is silent as to the basis upon which the conclusions have been drawn.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned proceedings in Pa.Mu.(A2)/1300/2023 dated 12.01.2024 is quashed and the proceedings in Pa.Mu.(A2)/9206/2017 dated 16.10.2017 stand restored. 3/4

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

8. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Connected Miscelleneous petitions are closed. 02.07.2024 Index:Yes/No Speaking order:Yes mpl To 1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Villupuram Taluk and District.

& WMP.Nos.16392 & 16394 of 2024 4/4