HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
P.MALAR – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT. – Respondent
W.P.No.6865 of 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal provision regarding the issuance of heirship certificates. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. acknowledgment of differing judicial views. (Para 3) |
| 3. necessity of fir for missing persons. (Para 4) |
| 4. liberty to rectify procedural issues before further action. (Para 5) |
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to issue legal heirship certificate of Paramasivam and without insisting “not traceable” certificate for man missing FIR within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied upon the judgment of this Court in R.Janaki Vs The Tahsildar & other in W.P.(M.D)No. 5252 of 2024. In the said judgment, this Court considered all the relevant judgements and held that the insistence on a Civil Court decree need not be made with reference to the grant of a legal heirship certificate. In view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, it was held that if there is a person to challenge the right or demand, a civil suit need to be filed.
Therefore, this Court held that even in the absence of the civil suit, the Tahsildar can consider the question of granting the legal heirship certificate.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first and second respondents would submit that a contrary view has also been taken in W.P.No.14233 of 2020 dated 28.10.2020.
4. Be that as it may, in the instant case, not even a man missing FIR has been lodged by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am afraid that the question of whether the petitioner’s husband is really missing, if so from what date, whether it is due to a matrimonial problem or otherwise and whether he remains untraceable, are all matters that cannot be conclusively decided by the Tahsildar. Therefore, in the absence of both a complaint with reference to man missing and without any attempt to trace the person, it would not be appropriate for the Tahsildar to declare that the person is unheard of or remains untraceable for seven years and issue a legal heirship certificate. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and dehors the divergent views that have been taken, I am of the view that the Tahsildar cannot be directed to grant a legal heirship certificate.
5. With liberty to the petitioner to lodge a complaint and get it registered for the man missing case by mentioning the original date of missing and thereafter, approach the Civil Court for the grant of a decree regarding civil death, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
27.02.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl To
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
2. THE TAHSILDR, VEPPANTHATTAI TALUK, PERAMBALUR DISTRICT.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
27.02.2025
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.