Madras High Court
P.Malar vs The District Collector on 27 February, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.6865 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.6865 of 2025
P.MALAR ... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CUDDALORE,
CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
2. THE TAHSILDR,
VEPPANTHATTAI TALUK,
PERAMBALUR DISTRICT.
3. MANIRATINAM
4. P.VIJAYAN
5. P.SHOBANA
6. P.AKILA ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to issue legal
heirship certificate of Paramasivam and without insisting “not traceable”
certificate for man missing FIR within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:43:15 pm )
W.P.No.6865 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dharani
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General VIII
Assisted by Mr.P. Murthy
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the second
respondent to issue legal heirship certificate of Paramasivam and without
insisting “not traceable” certificate for man missing FIR within a time frame
to be fixed by this Court.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied upon the
judgment of this Court in R.Janaki Vs The Tahsildar & other in
W.P.(M.D)No. 5252 of 2024. In the said judgment, this Court considered all
the relevant judgements and held that the insistence on a Civil Court decree
need not be made with reference to the grant of a legal heirship certificate. In
view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, it was held that if there is a
person to challenge the right or demand, a civil suit need to be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:43:15 pm )
Therefore, this Court held that even in the absence of the civil suit, the
Tahsildar can consider the question of granting the legal heirship certificate.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first and
second respondents would submit that a contrary view has also been taken in
W.P.No.14233 of 2020 dated 28.10.2020.
4. Be that as it may, in the instant case, not even a man missing FIR has
been lodged by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am afraid that the
question of whether the petitioner’s husband is really missing, if so from what
date, whether it is due to a matrimonial problem or otherwise and whether he
remains untraceable, are all matters that cannot be conclusively decided by
the Tahsildar. Therefore, in the absence of both a complaint with reference to
man missing and without any attempt to trace the person, it would not be
appropriate for the Tahsildar to declare that the person is unheard of or
remains untraceable for seven years and issue a legal heirship certificate.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and dehors the divergent
views that have been taken, I am of the view that the Tahsildar cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:43:15 pm )
directed to grant a legal heirship certificate.
5. With liberty to the petitioner to lodge a complaint and get it
registered for the man missing case by mentioning the original date of
missing and thereafter, approach the Civil Court for the grant of a decree
regarding civil death, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
27.02.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsl
To
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CUDDALORE,
CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
2. THE TAHSILDR,
VEPPANTHATTAI TALUK,
PERAMBALUR DISTRICT.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:43:15 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
27.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:43:15 pm )
