S.Pricilla Esther, v. The Tahsildar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.07.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.24319 of 2016 And W.M.P.No.20810 of 2016 S.Pricilla Esther ... Petitioner Vs.

The Tahsildar, Egmore Taluk, Spurt Tank Road, Chennai - 600 031.

... Respondent Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 22.06.2016 in Na.Ka.E4/10531/2015 on the file of respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue Legal heir certificate of deceased Dr.D.C.Solomon and Mrs.Jayaseeli Clarence to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohan For Respondent : Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2.The petitioner would state that she was born on 22.02.1986 and being an orphan, was brought up by Nirmala Sishu Bhavan, Royapuram, Chennai, since she was three years old and Dr.D.C.Solomon and Mrs.Jayaseeli Clarence who were working as Doctor and Head Mistress in a Government School had no issues and hence, taken the petitioner in adoption from a licensed adoption agency namely, Nirmala Sishu Bhavan, Royapuram, Chennai through deed of adoption dated 19.06.1989, registered as document no.517/1989, on the file of the Joint Registrar - III, Chennai North. The petitioner was also baptised on 27.05.1990.

The adoptive parents of the petitioner had also given the petitioner in marriage with one Sivagiri on 03.10.2008 and the petitioner is living happily by raising a family. 3.The petitioner would further state that her adoptive parents during their lifetime, had bequeathed their property in her favour by way of Will. The adoptive parents of the petitioner were also retired Government servants and to get the benefit out of their Estate, the petitioner had approached the respondent for issuance of legal heir certificate through application dated 25.09.2015, by enclosing all the necessary documents. The petitioner had also made very many visits to the office of the respondent and at last, she was issued with the rejection order dated 22.06.2016, stating that she is not the natural heir of her parents and challenging the legality of the same, the writ petition came to be filed.

4.Mr.S.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no prohibition on the part of the person practising Christian faith to adopt a child and admittedly, the petitioner was adopted from a licensed adoption agency, namely, Nirmala Sishu Bhavan, Royapuram, Chennai, through deed of adoption dated 19.06.1989, registered as document no.517/1989 and the petitioner was also baptised on 27.05.1990 and also given in marriage with one Sivagiri on 03.10.2008 and in the light of the un-controverted facts, there cannot be any impediment on the part of the respondent to issue legal heir certificate and prays for appropriate orders. 5.Per contra, Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would contend that admittedly, the petitioner is not a naturally born legal heir to the late.D.

C.Solomon and late.Jayaseeli Clarence and therefore, the respondent has rightly rejected the application for legal heir certificate and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 7.As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is no prohibition on the part of the person practising Christian faith to adopt a child and admittedly, the petitioner was an orphan and was adopted through a licensed adoption agency namely, Nirmala Sishu Bhavan, Royapuram, Chennai and was adopted through deed of adoption dated 19.06.1989, registered as document no.517/1989 and the petitioner was also baptised on 27.05.1990 and subsequently, was also given in marriage and she has also raised her family. 8.

stand taken by the respondent in the impugned order dated 22.06.2016 is un-sustainable and therefore, warrants interference. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 22.06.2016, is set aside and the respondent shall take into consideration, the document submitted by the petitioner along with the application and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pri To The Tahsildar, Egmore Taluk, Spurt Tank Road, Chennai - 600 031.

1 cc to Mr.S.Mohan, Advocate, sr.39654 1 cc to Government Pleader, sr.40001 W.P.No.24319 of 2016 And W.M.P.No.20810 of 2016 skv co kra 27.07.2016