Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 410 (MAD)

D. Srividhya v. Tahsildhar, Mambalam, Chennai

2018-02-06

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the respondent dated 22.11.2017 refusing to grant Legal Heirship Certificate to the petitioner on the reason that the deceased did not have any Class-I heir and that the respondent is not in a position to issue Legal Heirship Certificate in respect of Class-II heir. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner's father K.A. Desikan died on 29.06.2006 leaving behind the petitioner's mother by name Vaidehi Desikan, the petitioner and another sister of the petitioner by name, Srivinayaa as his legal heirs. The respondent issued the legal heirship certificate to that effect on 03.08.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother, namely, the said Vaidehi Deiskan died on 18.02.2016 leaving behind the petitioner and her sister as her legal heirs. The respondent herein issued the legal heirship certificate to that effect on 26.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner's sister, namely, the said Srivinayaa died on 04.11.2017 leaving behind the petitioner alone as her legal heir, as she died unmarried, at the age of 32 years. When the petitioner sought for legal heirship certificate from the respondent, in pursuant to the death of her sister, the respondent refused to issue such Certificate, based on the reasons as stated supra. 4. Mr. K. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the decisions made by this Court, reported in (M. Arumugam & Others v. The Tahsildar, Madurai Sluth, Madurai & Another) and 2016 SCC Online Mad 5440 (D. Viswanathan vs. The District Collector, Collectorate of Chennai, Chennai & another) submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the legal heirship certificate from the respondent as Class-II heir. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the respondent was not in a position to issue the legal heir certificate only because of the reasons stated in the impugned order. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the materials placed before this Court and also the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the reasons set out by the respondent in the impugned order cannot be sustained and on the other hand, the respondent has to consider the request of the petitioner and issue appropriate legal heir certificate in the light of the order passed in (M. Arumugam & Others v. The Tahsildar, Madurai Sluth, Madurai & Another). Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders in the light of the order already passed by this Court in the decision reported in (M. Arumugam & Others v. The Tahsildar, Madurai Sluth, Madurai & Another). Such exercise shall be done by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.