IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WA No.384 of 2026 and CMP N o .3501 o f 2026

1. Ravichandran S/o.Govindarajan, No.7/25, Bharathidasan Nagar Main Road, Adambakkam, Chennai-600008.

2. Baby W/o.Ramasamy Door No.168, SBI Officers Colony Meyyanur, Salem-636004.

3. Balu S/o.Govindarajan Kamarajar Nagar, Egapuram Village Sankari Taluk Salem District-637502.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Suseela W/o.Govindarajan (Late)

14/149, Valaiyachettipatti Madadhur Edangansalai Bit-I Village Salem-637503.

2. The Collector Salem District.

3. The District Revenue Officer Salem District.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer Sankari Division, Salem District.

5. The Tahsildar Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

6. The Village Administrative Officer Idanganasalai Bit-I Village Sankari, Salem District.

7. Chitra S/o.Chandran

4/12C1, Egapuram Village Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow this appeal by setting aside the order in W.P.No.9183 of 2025 dated

25.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge.

For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Krishnasamy For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Ramanathan for R1 Mr. M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for R2 to R6 JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the first respondent/Suseela was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Govindarajan and was, therefore, entitled to issuance of legal heirship certificate, reversing the findings recorded by the revenue authorities.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that after the death of Govindarajan on 8.7.2011, legal heirship certificate was not issued in favour of the first respondent/Suseela, as it was seriously disputed by the appellants herein stating that she was not the legally wedded wife. The Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the appellate authority both recorded a concurrent finding that the first respondent/Suseela was not the legally wedded wife of Govindarajan and, therefore, she was not entitled to issuance of legal heirship certificate.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Single Judge has upset the findings of the revenue authorities on the basis that first respondent/Suseela was receiving pension as she was recognised by the department as the legally wedded wife of the deceased; the pension account passbook and the pension payment order show the name of Govindarajan as her husband. He would submit that once a finding was recorded by the revenue authorities based on evidence, the said finding of fact cannot be substituted by the learned Single Judge.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that order of the learned Single Judge is based on a specific finding that the aadhar card; family card; pension payment order; and the pension account passbook show the name of the first respondent/Suseela as wife of the deceased Govindarajan and, therefore, the first respondent/Suseela is, undisputedly, the legally wedded wife of the deceased Govindarajan. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. We find that when the first respondent/Suseela sought issuance of legal heirship certificate in her favour, it was examined and the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the basis of the materials placed before him, held that the first respondent/Suseela was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased and, therefore, legal heirship certificate could not be issued to her. The revision filed by the first respondent/Suseela before the District Revenue Officer was also dismissed.

6. The learned Single Judge has upset the aforesaid orders and findings of the revenue authorities by substituting his own findi