BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 26.06.2024 Pronounced on 25.07.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.26566 of 2023 J.Deepa W/o.Late Jayaprabhu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

2.N.Aasirvatham ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to transfer the RC Book to the name of the petitioner by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Paul Murugesh For R1 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader For R2 : No appearance

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to transfer the RC Book to the name of the petitioner by considering the petitioner's representation dated

01.08.2023.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the daughter-

in-law of the second respondent. The petitioner's husband/son of the second respondent Jayaprabhu died on 21.11.2022. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of the marriage between the petitioner and the said Jayaprabhu (since deceased), the petitioner's family had given a Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 63 AS 9587 as Gift to the petitioner and her husband/son of the second respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject vehicle is still in possession of the petitioner and that the due to financial difficulties, the petitioner proposes to sell the vehicle.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the petitioner approached the first respondent during March 2023 to transfer the registration in the name of the petitioner, the same has been refused purportedly on account of the objection raised by the second respondent before the first respondent on 27.03.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has repaid the amount due to the financier.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent submitted that guidelines have been issued for flagging/blacklisting those vehicles in the 'Vahan' web portal and that if any of the legal heirs raise objections, the transfer of registration cannot be completed under Section

50(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

6. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner added and has placed reliance of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rendered on 07.11.2023 in A.S.No.596 of 2019 in the case of Agnes @ Karpaga Devi and another vs. Pauline @ Pauline Iruthaya Mary

7. A reference was made to para 8 of the said decision, wherein, it was held that in case a Christian dies “intestate” leaving behind a widow and kindred, one third of the properties will be taken up for by widow and the remaining properties will go to the kindred.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent.

9. The petitioner is a Hindu by birth. The petitioner's husband was a Christian. Therefore, the marriage would have been solemnized under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The succession to the property of a person dying intestate is, therefore, to be governed by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

10. In Agnes @ Karpaga Devi case referred to supra, it was held as under:-

“8.As per the rules under Section 33 & 33-A where the Christian dies intestate leaving behind a widow and lineal descendants 1/3rd of the property would go to the widow and remaining 2/3rd will go to the lineal descendants. If an intestate dies leaving behind a widow and a kindred 1/3rd of the property will be taken by the widow and the remaining will go the kindred. If there is neither lineal descendants nor kindred, the entire property will go to the widow. Section 33-A provides fo