The Court emphasized the necessity of document production under Section 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice to ascertain the truth regarding the Legal Heir Certificate, allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated December 1, 2022 passed in I.A. No. 06 of 2022 in O.S. No. 3981 of 2013 by the I Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai by allowing the I.A. No. 06 of 2022.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal Order dated December 1, 2022 passed in I.A. No. 6 of 2022 in O.S. No. 3981 of 2013 on the file of ‘I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, at Chennai’ [henceforth ‘Trial Court’].

2. The Revision Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, and the respondents herein are the defendants in the Suit in O.S. No. 3981of 2013 before the Trial Court. Sole plaintiff viz. K. Satyavathi passed away. Hence, petitioners 2 to 5 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased Sole plaintiff vide this Court’s Order dated November 11, 2024 made in CMP Nos. 4362, 4366 and 4367 of 2024 in CRP No. 396 of 2023. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition are thus:

3.1. K. Satyavathi, the deceased sole plaintiff, filed a Suit praying to declare that she is a daughter of Late V. Kannan and entitled to ½ share in the Suit Property and for other reliefs.

3.2. The eighth defendant filed a written statement contesting the case. Pending the Suit, the first defendant died, leaving behind the defendants 2 to 4 as his legal heirs.

3.3. Accordingly to the sole plaintiff, the defendants 2 to 4 and the deceased - first defendant sold the Suit Property without her knowledge on the basis of an alleged Legal Heir Certificate dated December 1, 1988. She disputed the genuineness of the Legal Heirship Certificate.

3.4. Hence, the sole plaintiff sent an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [RTI Act] to the Public Information Officer, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai, seeking information about the alleged Legal Heir Certificate dated December 1, 1988 and could not obtain a favourable reply.

3.5. Then the sole plaintiff issued notice under Order 11 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) to the Counsel for the defendants 2 to 4, calling upon them to produce the alleged Legal Heir Certificate dated November 11, 1988 copy of the application submitted for issuing the alleged Legal Heir Certificate, copy of documents annexed therewith, and other particulars. The defendants 2 to 4 did not furnish the same.

3.6. Hence, the sole plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 06 of 2022 in the Original Suit before the Trial Court, to take out a subpoena to Tahsildar, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai-31 or his authorized Officers, for producing the entire Original Records and Documents in respect of the proceedings in K.Dis.B4 18823 of 1988 dated November 11, 1988 and K.Dis B4 21322 of 1988 dated December 1, 1988, as well as for adducing evidence in respect of the documents and the queries in the RTI Letter.

3.7. The Trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said Order, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the deceased sole plaintiff and the first defendant are sister and brother, and the legal heirs of one Kannan. The first defendant with an intention to defeat and defraud her lawful right, fraudulently obtained Legal Heir Certificate as if he alone is the legal heir of late V. Kannan. The deceased sole plaintiff sent an application under RTI Act seeking certain particulars about the alleged Legal Heir Certificate issued in favour of the first defendant. The Tahsildar, Nungambakkam Taluk, sent a reply stating that the documents relating to the Legal Heir Certificate could not be traced out.

4.1. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Legal Heir Certificate Issuance Register and other related registers are permanent in nature. The Tahsildar has wilful