Muthulakshmi vs S.Sathya,
- Court
- Madras High Court
WA(MD) No. 1748 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
WA(MD) No. 1748 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011158402026}
and
C.M.P(MD)No.14900 of 2026
Muthulakshmi
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. S.Sathya,
D/o.Late.Ra.Chandrasekar,
No.169, Sathya Illam,
E.B.Colony,
Pykarai,
Madurai - 625 004.Madurai
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thirumangalam Taluk,
Madurai District.
3. The Thasildhar
Thirupparankundram Taluk,
Madurai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying
to prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order
passed by this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.15437 of 2026 dated
10.06.2026.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:21:56 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1748 of 2026
For Petitioner(s) :Mr.P.Suresh
For Respondent(s) :Mr.A.Mohan
Government Advocate (Civil side)
for R2 & R3
Mr.N.Marimuthu for R1
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. VELMURUGAN J.)
Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing
the writ petition, the appellant, who was the third respondent in the writ
petition, has preferred the present writ appeal.
2. Mr. N. Marimuthu, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the
first respondent, and Mr. A. Mohan, learned Government Advocate (Civil
Side), takes notice on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.
3. With the consent of both parties, the writ appeal is taken up for
final disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned order dated 10.06.2026 was passed without issuing notice to
the appellant, though she was a necessary and directly affected party. The
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:21:56 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1748 of 2026
appellant, being the first wife of the deceased, disputes the marital status
of the mother of the first respondent and, consequently, the first
respondent's claim for inclusion in the Legal Heir Certificate. It was
further contended that the dispute involves serious questions of fact and
law relating to marriage and succession, which can be adjudicated only
by a competent Civil Court. The learned Single Judge erred in recording
that the appellant had consented to the inclusion of the first respondent's
name in the Legal Heir Certificate, whereas no such consent had been
given by the appellant. It was also submitted that the appellant was
deprived of an opportunity to avail herself of the appropriate remedy
before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, the learned counsel prayed
for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and
allowing the writ appeal.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted
that, during the enquiry conducted by the third respondent, the appellant
had categorically admitted that the first respondent was the daughter born
to the deceased through his second wife and had expressed no objection
to the inclusion of the first respondent's name in the Legal Heir
Certificate. However, disregarding the said admission, the third
respondent issued the Legal Heir Certificate by excluding the first
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:21:56 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1748 of 2026
respondent's name. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly allowed
the writ petition, and no interference with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge is warranted.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the materials available on record.
7. Admittedly, there is a dispute with regard to the legal heirship of
the deceased Chandrasekar. Since the rival claimants dispute each other's
status as legal heirs of the deceased, the second respondent directed the
parties to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication of their
respective claims. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent
approached this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the order
passed by the second respondent. However, the learned Single Judge,
without issuing notice to the appellant, who was a necessary and directly
affected party, allowed the writ petition even at the admission stage.
8. On a perusal of the records, it is evident that there is a serious
dispute regarding the status of the rival claimants as legal heirs of the
deceased. Such a dispute involves questions of fact and law, which can be
adjudicated only by a competent Civil Court. Therefore, the Revenue
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:21:56 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1748 of 2026
Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam, was justified in directing the parties
to approach the competent Civil Court for establishing their respective
claims.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal is allowed, and
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.15437 of
2026, dated 10.06.2026, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order
passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam Taluk, dated
02.09.2025, is restored. The parties are at liberty to approach the
competent Civil Court and establish their respective claims of legal
heirship in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.V.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.)
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AM
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:21:56 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1748 of 2026
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thirumangalam Taluk,
Madurai District.
2. The Thasildhar
Thirupparankundram Taluk,
Madurai District.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:21:56 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1748 of 2026
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
AM
WA(MD) No. 1748 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 12:21:56 pm )