SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 77808

MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.ARUMUGAM – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
SA 243/2017



Advocates:
['M/S G PAVENDHAN', '', 'M N KATHIR', 'S P MULLAI', 'SPL GOVT PLEADERCS', '', 'FOR RR &', 'MEMO OF APPEARANCE FILED', 'M/S V G SURESH KUMAR', 'BHAKTHAVACHALABABU', 'FOR R']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.01.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

S.A.NO.243 OF 2017

S.Arumugam

...Appellant / 1st Defendant /

Plaintiff

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

Erode District.

2.The Tahsildar,

Erode Taluk,

Erode District.

...Respondents 1 & 2 / Defendants 2 & 3 /

Defendants 1 & 2

3.R.Krishnaveni

...3rd Respondent / Appellant / 3rd Defendant

PRAYER : The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil

Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2016

made in A.S.No.75 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sub

Court, Erode against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2015 in

O.S.No.113 of 2014 passed by the Principal District Munsif at

Erode.

For Appellant

:

Mr.Ashok Kumar

for M/s.G.Pavendhan

For Respondent

Nos.1 and 2

:

Mr.P.Harish

Government Advocate

For Respondent No.3 :

Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant before this

Court.

2. According to the plaintiff, he got married to one

Mahalakshmi on 21.01.1991. Since she was not able to beget a

child, she arranged for second marriage to the plaintiff for the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

purpose of getting a child and to fulfill her wish to rear a

child. The marital status between the plaintiff and the deceased

Mahalakshmi continued till her death. The said Mahalakshmi died

in a fire accident and an F.I.R. dated 18.08.2013 was registered

and investigated. The plaintiff submitted an application to the

second defendant, the Tahsildar, for issuance of legal heir

certificate along with required documents. The certificate was

unduly delayed and on enquiry, it was found that the third

defendant created unnecessary obstacles. Thereafter, under the

Right to Information Act, the plaintiff submitted a petition to

which, the second defendant issued a letter dated 05.02.2014

that he could not issue a legal heir certificate as the said

Mahalakshmi and the plaintiff were living separately and

directed the plaintiff to approach the Competent Court to get

relief. Hence, the suit was filed.

3. The defendants filed written statement denying the

averments. Particularly, the third defendant, who is the sister

of the deceased Mahalakshmi filed an independent written

statement, wherein, it is stated that the marriage between her

sister and the plaintiff lasted hardly for five months. The

plaintiff physically tortured and caused cruelty to her sister

demanding more dowry and jewels. During the month of June, 1991,

her sister was beaten up severely and warned not to venture to

come back unless she brought Rs.50,000/- as dowry. A criminal

complaint was lodged with the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Erode, for dowry harassment, wherein, the plaintiff confessed to

crime and agreed to take his wife back, but, he did not take her

back till her death.

4. The plaintiff filed a petition for restitution of

conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.6 of 1992 on the file of the Sub

Court, Erode, and it was allowed, against which, Mahalakshmi

preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.31 of 1994 and the Appellate

Court, by its order dated 11.03.1994, set aside the order

passed in H.M.O.P.No.6 of 1992. During the subsistence of the

first marriage, the plaintiff got married to another woman and

got two children. Therefore, Mahalakshmi was not able to co-

habit with the plaintiff till her death. In 1998, the plaintiff

asked Mahalakshmi and her mother to deposit a huge amount in his

name in order to take her back. The mother of Mahalakshmi

deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- jointly in the name of the

plaintiff and Mahalakshmi, but, the plaintiff demanded entire

deposit should be in his name only and it should not be in the

joint account. Hence, Mahalakshmi lodged a complaint with "All

Women Police Station" and got back the amount.

5. Thereafter, the pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top