Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
M. Sulochana - Petitioner
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 22961 of 2024 and WMP No. 25025 of 2024
Decided On : 23-08-2024
For the Petitioner: C. Prakasam.
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Vijay Additional Government Pleader.
IMPORTANT POINT
A mother is recognized as the sole legal heir under Hindu Law of Succession when her son dies, and siblings do not have a claim, validating the legal heirship certificate presented.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Registration of Settlement Deed - The court quashed the refusal of the 3rd respondent to register a settlement deed on the grounds that the petitioner was the sole legal heir of her deceased son under Hindu Law of Succession, and the refusal was based on an erroneous interpretation of legal heirship. The court emphasized that the legal heirship certificate correctly identified the petitioner as the sole heir, thus mandating the registration of the deed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased property and later settled part of it to her son, who died, reverting the property back to her. She executed a new settlement deed for her daughter, which was refused registration by the 3rd respondent due to the absence of other children in the legal heirship certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 3rd respondent erred in refusing registration based on an incorrect interpretation of the legal heirship certificate, which lawfully identified the petitioner as the sole heir.
Issues: Whether the refusal to register the settlement deed was justified based on the legal heirship certificate and the interpretation of Hindu Law of Succession.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Hindu Law of Succession, a mother is the sole class-I heir of her deceased son, and the siblings do not have a claim. The legal heirship certificate correctly reflected this, making the refusal to register the deed unsustainable.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, quashing the refusal order, and directing the 3rd respondent to register the settlement deed.
ORDER :
S. Sounthar, J.
[PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number:RFL/Vettavalam/34/2024, dated 24.07.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to register the settlement deed dated 16.07.2024.]
The petitioner herein seeks issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number:RFL/Vettavalam/34/2024, dated 24.07.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to register the settlement deed dated 16.07.2024.
2. According to the petitioner, she purchased property with an extent of 2475 sq.ft in Neivanatham Village, Kilpennathur, situated in Old S.No.75/1, new S.No.90/25 from one Dhanabal, Son of Annamalai under sale deed dated 26.03.2007. Thereafter, she settled half of the property in favour of her son Dhanabal under registered settlement deed dated 11.03.2015. The petitioner's son Dhanabal died on 15.04.2024. Therefore, as a sole class-I heir, property reverted back to the petitioner. Later on, she executed settlement deed in favour of her daughter in respect of the property reverted back to her on death of her son and presented the same for registration. The 3rd respondent by an impugned order refused to register the same on the ground that other children of the petitioner viz., Ramesh, Jayalakshmi and Chithra were not mentioned as legal heirs in the legal heirship certificate produced by the petitioner. Under Hindu Law of Succession, in case of death of male Hindu as a bachelor, the mother, in her capacity as class-I heir entitled to succeeds to his estate and siblings of the deceased are not entitled to be declared as legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore, the legal heirship certificate produced by the petitioner showing her as a sole legal heir of the deceased Dhanabal is in accordance with law.
3. The 3rd respondent committed an error in making comment on the legal heirs certificate produced by the petitioner and refusing registration on the ground that the siblings of the deceased were not added as settlors in the document. Therefore, the impugned refusal check slip is unsustainable on the face of it and hence the same is quashed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to represent the document of registration before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent shall register the same, if it is otherwise in order.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
