Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner as well as the second respondent in the writ petition claims terminal benefits payable due to the death of one Late Erusan, a Sweeper employed in the first respondent Municipality, who died on 09.04.2012. 3. While it the case of the petitioner that she is the wife of Late Erusan, and the daughter Valliammal (25 years), Anitha (21 years) and Selvam (23 years) are children born through Late Erusan, the case of the second respondent is that Late Erusan was a Bachelor and he did not get married. 4. According to the second respondent, he is the adopted son of Late Erusan, while his biological father is the younger brother of Late Erusan. In respect of his claim, he has produced a copy of the ration card of Late Erusan, wherein the name of the petitioner does not find place, while the name of the second respondent finds place. He has also produced a copy of the ration card of the petitioner for the period 2005-2009 and the name of Late Erusan does not find place. He has also produced voters list, wherein the petitioner was shown as wife of one Chandran. 5. The second respondent has alleged that since taking into account the fact that late Erusan was seriously ill in the year 2009, the petitioner was made as a nominee of Late Erusan in the Service Register. 6. The second respondent has also produced the reply dated 06.07.2012 sent by the first respondent Municipality to the queries raised by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, wherein it is stated that from the records it was found that on 29.05.2009, the name of the petitioner was registered in the Service Register as the wife of Erusan. It is alleged by the second respondent that Erusan was seriously ill at that time. 7. The petitioner has strenuously objected to the aforesaid allegations. According to her, Thiru Erusan nominated her in 2009 itself to receive the terminal benefit, in the event of death, as his legally wedded wife, and he died only after three years. It is also her case that the adoption deed was prepared for the purpose of this case and to take away illegally the benefits payable due to the death of her husband. 8. This Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact under writ jurisdiction. It is also her case that the adoption deed was prepared for the purpose of this case and to take away illegally the benefits payable due to the death of her husband. 8. This Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact under writ jurisdiction. The aforesaid facts make it very clear that adjudication is necessary in a competent Civil Court or Family Court as to whether the petitioner is the legal heir or the second respondent is the legal heir of Late Erusan pursuant to the adoption deed, which was not registered. 9. Hence, I am not inclined to issue direction to the first respondent to disburse the terminal benefits payable to Late Erusan to the petitioner. However, in view of the disputed questions of fact involved, until the parties established their right in a competent Civil Court, the first respondent is directed not to disburse the terminal benefits. 10. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.