First Wife Disputes Alleged Second Wife’s Daughter’s Heir Claim: Madras HC Restores Civil-Court Route

The dispute concerned the legal heirship of the deceased, Chandrasekar. The appellant, his first wife, disputed the marital status of the first respondent’s mother and the first respondent’s claim to inclusion in the Legal Heir Certificate.

The Revenue Divisional Officer directed the parties to establish their claims before a competent Civil Court. The first respondent challenged that direction by writ petition, which the Single Judge allowed on 10 June 2026.

The appellant appealed, contending that the Single Judge had granted relief without notice to her, although she was a directly affected party, and had incorrectly recorded that she consented to the first respondent’s inclusion in the certificate.

The Court applied the principle that a person who is a necessary and directly affected party must be given an opportunity to be heard before an order affecting that person is made.

It also held that a serious dispute over legal heirship involving contested questions of fact and law is for a competent Civil Court to adjudicate; the revenue authority was justified in directing the rival claimants to establish their respective claims there.

The Court found that the appellant was a necessary and directly affected party but had not received notice before the Single Judge allowed the writ petition.

It also noted the serious dispute between the rival claimants concerning their status as legal heirs, including contested questions of fact and law. Those matters could not be resolved by the revenue authority and had to be determined by a competent Civil Court; accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer’s direction was justified.

It restored the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order dated 2 September 2025 and left the parties at liberty to establish their respective legal-heirship claims before the competent Civil Court. No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.