BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12/11/2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
W.P.(MD)No.10163 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008
Aisha Beevi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar,
Palani Taluk,
Palani,
Dindigul District.
2.Ojeerammal Beevi ... Respondents
Prayer
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned order of the respondent dated 30.04.2008 in
O.Mu.7334/08/A3 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to
issue the correct legal heir certificate after deleting the name Ojirammal
Beevi, who is also shown as a legal heir in the certificate issued by the first
respondent dated 01.02.1999 in Pa.Mu.No.1517/99/A3 as serial No.6.
!For Petitioner ...Mr.P.Srinivas
^For Respondent No.1 ...Mr.D.Sasikumar
Government Advocate
:ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.D.Sasikumar,
learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the first respondent.
2. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the
petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the
writ petition, is to the effect the the first respondent viz., the Tahsildar,
Palani Taluk, Palani, Dindigul District earlier issued heirship certificate
dated 01.02.1999, relating to the deceased viz., Haji. Syed Gani, specifying the
second respondent herein as also one of the legal heirs of the said deceased;
subsequently, the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.101 of 1999 before
the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani, for partition, but it was dismissed with
the finding that she is not one of the legal heirs of the said deceased; as
against which she preferred an appeal in A.S.No.36 of 2003 before the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, which also
was dismissed; subsequently, when the petitioner approached the first respondent
for deleting the name of the second respondent in the said heirship certificate
cited supra, he passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2008 as though, there was
no specific finding that the second respondent is not one of the legal heirs of
the deceased. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such a view taken by the
first respondent, this writ petition is focused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would develop his arguments to
the effect that in the Judgments of the lower Courts, it has been clearly found
spelt out that the second respondent is not one of the legal heirs of the
deceased and on that basis alone, that suit was dismissed; however the said
copies of the Judgments were not enclosed along with the representation given to
the first respondent.
4. Heard the learned Government Advocate.
5. Hence, in these circumstances, the following direction is issued:
Within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order, the petitioner shall enclose the certified copies of the Judgments of
both the Courts referred to supra along with a copy of this order, to the first
respondent and thereupon the first respondent shall reconsider the same in the
light of the findings of the Courts.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
smn/dp
To
The Tahsildar,
Palani Taluk,
Palani,
Dindigul District.