Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
U. Balasubramaniyam - Appellant
Versus
N. Venkatesan and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4356 of 2019
Decided On : 25-02-2020
For the Appellant : S. Xaiver Felix.
For the Respondents: P. Dinesh Kumar.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Claim of compensation - Legal Heir Certificate - Counsel who has come on record for Appellant on change of learned counsel appearing for 1st Respondent - In support of his claim Appellant in paragraph of Grounds of Appeal has relied on a Legal Heir Certificate to state that his mother viz. is one of legal heirs - Counsel appearing for 1st Respondent herein pointed out that Legal Heir Certificate issued by is a forged one apart from fact that nine legal heirs enlisted in said Legal Heir Certificate are not true legal heirs - In Legal Heir Certificate issued by furnished at page of Typed Set of Papers filed by 1st Respondent along with Settlement Deed it is stated that who was residing at Street Chennai expired – Held, At end of arguments learned Special Government Pleader ensured that necessary enquiry will be made as regards issuance of forged Legal Heir Certificate and disciplinary action will be taken against staff concerned – Also learned Government Advocate ensured that speedy action will be taken by Police Department against fraudsters involved in this case - If legal heirs enlisted in forged Legal Heir Certificate or person who sought issuance of such Legal Heir Certificate are alive criminal action shall be proceeded against them so that issue is brought to a logical end - Criminal Court shall impose imprisonment and not let them go only with payment of fine - This is to signal all fraudsters that Law is strict and imprisonment is only way to punish them for their fraudulent act - This Court makes it clear that if person responsible for issuance of alleged Legal Heir Certificate is still in service necessary enquiry shall be made against him/her and terminal benefits if not already granted shall not be disbursed till issue comes to a logical end - This does not mean that he/she is exonerated from criminal proceedings - Action taken by Police Department as well as Departmental action initiated against staff who are responsible for fabrication of Legal Heir Certificate bearing shall be reported to this Court - Only on aspect of criminal action and departmental proceedings Registry is directed to list this matter for compliance before this Court in July - Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. Vaidyanathan, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order 16.08.2019 passed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in O.S. No. 4436 of 2019.
2. Heard Mr. S. Xavier Felix, learned counsel, who has come on record for the Appellant on change of vakalat, and Mr. P. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent.
3. In support of his claim, the Appellant, in paragraph 17 of the Grounds of Appeal, has relied on a Legal Heir Certificate dated 18.06.1990 to state that, his mother viz. U. Thirupurammal is one of the legal heirs of Late R. Kandasamy Gramini.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent herein pointed out that, the Legal Heir Certificate dated 18.06.1990 issued by the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk vide D.Dis. (C)/6487/90 is a forged one, apart from the fact that, nine legal heirs enlisted in the said Legal Heir Certificate are not the true legal heirs of Late R. Kandasamy Gramini.
5. In the Legal Heir Certificate dated 18.06.1990 vide D.Dis. (C)/6487/90 issued by the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, furnished at page 18 of the Typed Set of Papers filed by the 1st Respondent, along with the Settlement Deed dated 10.03.2014, it is stated that, R. Kandasamy Gramini, who was residing at No. 2, Virupachi Eswaran Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai-4, expired on 31.05.1970.
6. The capital of the State of Tamil Nadu was re-christened as 'Chennai' from 'Madras' only in the year 1994. In the said Legal Heir Certificate issued in the year 1990, the residential address of Late R. Kandasamy Gramini is mentioned as 'Chennai', instead of 'Madras'. Also, the seal of the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, indicates 'Chennai', though the Letter Head of the Legal Heir Certificate indicates the Revenue limit as 'Taluk Office, Mylapore-Triplicane, Madras 600 028'. Prima facie, the said Legal Certificate appears to be a forged and fabricated one.
7. In this regard, this Court, on the earlier date of hearing, asked Mr. T.M. Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader, to enquire on the genuineness of the alleged Legal Heir Certificate. Today, he produced a communication dated 24.02.2020 received from the Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk, Chennai-600 028, wherein, it is stated that the alleged Legal Heir Certificate is not genuine. The said communication is taken on record. For better understanding, contents of the communication dated 24.02.2020, are reproduced hereunder:
| From: The Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk, Chennai – 28. | To: The Special Government Pleader, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 108. |
L.Dis.A4/1178/2020, dated 24.02.2020
Sir,
Sub : Legal Heir Certificate - Chennai District - Mylapore Taluk - Genuineness Report furnished-- reg.
Ref : Telephone Message from Special Government Pleader, dated 23.02.2020.
*****
In the reference cited, it is requested the Genuineness of Legal Heir Certificate D.Dis. (C)/6487/9064, dated 18.06.1990. In this regard, it is informed that the above Certificate is not genuine.
Yours faithfully,
Enclosure - Fake Certificate xerox
Tahsildhar,
Mylapore Taluk,
Chennai - 28.
8. Ms. P. Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) was also asked to enquire on the complaint, if any, lodged by the 1st Respondent against the fraudsters in the case on hand.
9. Today, learned counsel for the Appellant fairly submitted that, he advised his client not to pursue this Appeal any further, as there are no bona fides in this case. On instructions, he sought permission of this Court to withdraw this Appeal with liberty to the Appellant to proceed further.
10. Though, this Court accepts the fairness of the learned counsel for the Appellant, the conduct of the Appellant in relying upon a forged and fabricated Legal Heir Certificate to prove his claim is reprehensible. As the Appellant has approached this Court with unc
