Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M Dhandapani, J
SUJATHA – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Ramesh
For the Respondents:Mr.T.M.Rajangam Government Advocate

Court disposes writ petition by directing authority to consider appeal within reasonable time.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus. Facts of the Case: Petitioner claims father had two wives with five children total. After father's death on 22.10.1999, legal heir certificate was issued only to first wife and children, excluding petitioner and her brother.

Findings of Court:
Court directs third respondent to consider petitioner's appeal without examining merits.

Issues: Whether direction should be issued to consider petitioner's appeal for cancellation of legal heir certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: Court considers limited request sufficient to direct consideration of appeal within reasonable time.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with direction to third respondent to consider petitioner's appeal dated 16.03.2023 and pass orders within twelve weeks after affording opportunity of hearing.

Table of Content
1. direction for enquiry and cancellation of certificate (Para 1)
2. background facts on family and certificate (Para 2)
3. limited prayer for direction to consider appeal (Para 3)
4. direction for consideration with hearing (Para 4)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent herein to conduct an enquiry and cancel the legal heir certificate issued by the 3rd Respondent on 23.03.2025 vide Certificate No. TN -7202503102279 and consequently, to issue a fresh legal heir certificate for the deceased Seenu, including the names of the petitioner as well as her brother.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father, Seenu, had two wives -Saraswathi (first wife) and Uma (second wife). Saraswathi had three children namely Vijayalakshmi, Anbu and Sridhar, while Uma had two children namely Sujatha (petitioner) and Sivasankaran. The petitioner’s father died on 22.10.1999. After his demise, both families applied for a legal heirship certificate, but it was initially refused. Later, the first wife’s son applied again and despite earlier refusals to both sides, the 3^rd respondent issued a legal heirship certificate on 23.03.2025 recognizing only the first wife and her children. Aggrieved, the petitioner’s mother and the petitioner filed separate appeals on 07.02.2026 and 16.03.2026 respectively, seeking cancellation of that certificate and inclusion of their names, but no action was taken. Hence, the writ petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.

4.Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s appeal dated 16.03.2023 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the second wife and the children of the deceased Seenu, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, 5.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASM Dhandapani, JSUJATHA – AppellantVersusThe District Collector – Respondent

Court disposes writ petition by directing authority to consider appeal within reasonable time.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M Dhandapani, J
SUJATHA – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent