W.P(MD)No.18357 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 20.10.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

W.P(MD).No.18357 of 2021

and

W.M.P(MD).No.15171 of 2021

C.Esakkimuthu ... Petitioner

Vs.

The Thasildar,

Thovalai Taluk,

Boothapandi and Post,

KanyakumariDistrict. ...Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order

in Na.Ka.No.M1/2451/2021 dated 09.08.2021 passed by the respondent

and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue

legal heir certificate of late Madaswamy on considering the legal

heir application of the family members dated 27.07.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.Rajkumar Sen

For Respondent

: Mr.P.Subbaraj

Counsel for State

ORDER

The petitioner assails an order dated 09.08.2021 by which his

application for legal heirship certificate in respect of his

deceased brother, Madaswamy, was rejected.

2.The petitioner states that his parents had two sons and three

daughters. His father died on 12.09.1997. His mother predeceased his

father. Consequently, on the date of death of the petitioner's

father, the five siblings, including the petitioner, were the legal

heirs. His younger brother, Madaswamy, is said to have suffered from

a liver ailment for several years. The petitioner states that he

died on 05.05.2021 and relies upon the death certificate issued on

17.07.2021 in this connection. According to the petitioner, his

1/3

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

W.P(MD)No.18357 of 2021

brother married one Annakili, who passed away on 01.01.1993. The

petitioner asserts that Madaswamy and Annakili did not have

children. Consequently, upon the death of Madaswamy, the petitioner

asserts that he and his sisters qualified as class II legal heirs

under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, the impugned order

is assailed.

3.Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice

on behalf of the sole respondent. He submits that the Thasildar may

be directed to reconsider the matter in the light of earlier

decisions of this Court on this subject.

4.The impugned order cites only one reason for rejecting the

application. The reason cited therein is that the petitioner is not

a direct heir of the deceased. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does

not classify legal heirs into direct heirs and indirect heirs. As

regards the legal heirs of a Hindu male who dies intestate, Section

8 thereof specifies the order in which the estate of such Hindu male

would devolve. Section 8 specifies that the estate of a Hindu male

would first devolve upon the heirs specified in class I of the

Schedule. If there is no heir in class I, it would devolve upon the

heirs specified in class II. If there are no heirs specified in

class II, it would devolve upon the agnates of the deceased, and if

there are no agnates upon the cognates of the deceased. The schedule

specifies the class I legal heirs. It also specifies the class II

legal heirs under nine entries. In terms of Section 9 thereof, the

order of succession of the heirs in the nine entries under class II

of the schedule would progress in sequence from the first entry to

the second and so on until the ninth entry.

5.In earlier orders, this Court concluded that an application

for a legal heir certificate should not be rejected merely on the

ground that the applicant concerned is not a direct heir. Instead,

the Thasildar should conduct an inquiry so as to identify the class

II legal heirs. However, if upon conclusion of the inquiry, there is

a dispute as to the persons who qualify as class II legal heirs, the

parties may be relegated to the jurisdictional civil court.

6.As indicated above, the impugned order cites only one reason,

namely, that