Mayakkal v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.3088 of 2024 & W.M.P.(MD)No.3061 of 2024 Mayakkal

...Petitioner

vs.

1. The Commissioner, Tirumangalam Municipality, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

2. The Tahsildar, Tirumangalam Taluk, Court Campus, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

3. Sivapandi

4. Vasanthakumar

5. Minor Kodipuli, S/o.Late Velmurugan, Door No. 3/85, Melaurapanur Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

(5th Respondent Represented Through 4th Respondent)

...Respondents

1/5

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from issuing death certificate and legal heirship certificate to Rathinam inferring her to be the wife of Late Kuppurasu at the instance of the respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader for R2 No appearance for R1

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from issuing death certificate and legal heirship certificate to Rathinam inferring her to be the wife of late Kuppurasu at the instance of the respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2024.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has given a representation on 23.01.2024 stating that she is the wife of one Kuppuraj and he passed away. She requested the authorities not to issue death certificate and legal heirship certificate to one Rathinam, who claims that she is the wife of late Kuppuraj. However, the representation is yet to be considered. Hence, the Writ Petition. 2/5

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent would submit that the issue in the present case is civil in nature and therefore, he prayed for appropriate orders.

4. I have given due consideration to either side submissions.

5. In the present case, whether the petitioner is the wife of late Kuppuraj or Rathinam is the wife, cannot be decided before this Court. If the petitioner claims that she is the wife of late Kuppuraj, she has to approach the Civil Court to prove the same. Once Civil Court passes an order, then this Court can decide who is entitled to receive death certificate and legal heirship certificate of late Kuppuraj. Until then, the direction as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and there are no merits in this Writ Petition.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 30.01.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi 3/5

To The Tahsildar, Court Campus, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

4/5

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

mbi 30.01.2026 5/5