Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1869 (MAD)

K. Amudha v. Tahsildar

2014-07-02

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. This petition has been filed for the above said relief. 2. The writ petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the second Respondent. The second respondent is no more. Since, the counsel representing the second respondent stated that the second respondent wanted to implead the daughter of the second Respondent, this Court has adjourned the matter on several occasions to enable the counsel to bring the Legal heirs of the second respondent on record, by duly pointing out to the counsel that the daughter of the second respondent is the sister of K. Gopalram, being Class II heir of the petitioner's husband, she would not be entitled to any relief. Though this Court expressed has its view on merits and no petition has been filed for impleadment, none represented on behalf of the second respondent. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner married one K. Gopalram, who is the son of one Late Kirithivasan and brother of Sathya and Sridevi, who sought to be substituted in the place of second respondent / Kirithivasan, father. It appears that this is the family dispute and K.Gopalram passed away without any issues. Even assuming that Kirithivasan was alive, this Court would not have granted the relief. He is also one of the Class II legal heirs. As per Hindu law, only mother, wife and children are Class I legal heirs. The petitioner has produced the marriage registration certificate and their marriage was held on 04.02.2010. The petitioner has made an application on 07.08.2013 for issuance of legal heirs certificate and the same has been opposed by the family members of K.Gopalram. There is no reason as to why the first Respondent has not enquired the petitioner and issued legal heir certificate to her, by taking note of the provisions of Hindu Law. I find much force in the contention of the writ petitioner and the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the first respondent / Tahsildar to consider the application of the petitioner and issue a legal heir certificate as applicable to the Class I heirs, as he has no authority, to issue Class II legal heir Certificate. 4. I find much force in the contention of the writ petitioner and the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the first respondent / Tahsildar to consider the application of the petitioner and issue a legal heir certificate as applicable to the Class I heirs, as he has no authority, to issue Class II legal heir Certificate. 4. Before concluding, this Court is of the view that the learned counsel, who represented the second respondent sought time to substitute the daughter-in-law of Kirithivasan is deprecated, as after taking many adjournments, they did not come to represent before this Court. They must understand that the Court is the temple of justice and justice is beyond temple. 5. The Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. The first respondent is directed to complete the whole exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.