SEETHA Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 02.05.2014, and to direct the respondents 1 to 3, to issue the legal heirship certificate in terms of the order dated 05.06.2013, passed by the third respondent, by which the petitioner was recognized as a legal heir of late P.K. Nagaraj s/o Late Kailasa Mudaliyar.

(2.) THE third respondent by proceedings dated 05.06.2013, issued a legal heirship certificate mentioning the name of the petitioner as the wife of late P.K. Nagaraj and she along with two minor children as his legal heirs. Aggrieved by such order, the fourth respondent, step sister of P.K. Nagaraj preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent by order dated 25.02.2014, allowed the appeal and set aside the legal heirship certificate issued by the third respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal before the first respondent, District Collector was rejected by order dated 02.05.2014 and challenging the order passed by the District Collector, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the claim made by the petitioner is false and she is not the wife of Late P.K. Nagaraj who is the younger brother of the fourth respondent. It is submitted that the fourth respondent's brother Late P.K. Nagaraj was murdered by the Writ Petitioner along with other accused persons on 20.04.2013 by administering poison and he was hurriedly cremated on 21.04.2013 without information to his close relatives. Based on the complaint given by the fourth respondent, a case has been registered in Crime No. 313 of 2014, on the file of the Erode Town Police Station for offences under Sections 120B, 506(ii), 201 and 302 IPC. It is submitted that based on an earlier complaint lodged by the fourth respondent, a case has been registered in Crime No. 49 of 2013, for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and the same is pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Erode. It is further submitted that Sidhayee, the mother of the fourth respondent is the only wife of Late Kailasa Mudaliyar and record showing that she received widow pension establishes the same. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed O.S. No.481 of 2014, before the District Munsif Court, Erode for injunction and the Civil Court has not granted any injunction. It is submitted that the third accused in Crime No. 49 of 2013 pending before the District Crime Branch is one Kumar @ Saravanakumar, who is the husband of the petitioner, who is absconding. It is further submitted that Siddaee, mother of the fourth respondent was the lawful wife of Kailasa Mudaliyar and the fourth respondent is the only daughter born through their wedlock. Since Kailasa Mudaliyar had no male issues through Sidayee, he married Deivanaiyammal and subsequently, Thulasiammal and P.K. Nagaraj was born to Thulasiammal. It is further submitted that on 14.09.1997, P.K. Nagaraj married Usha Nandhini at Erode and the fourth respondent being his sister used to visit Erode and stayed with Nagaraj. Due to difference of opinion between the spouse, Nagaraj filed a divorce petition against Usha Nandhini in HMOP NO.102 of 2002, and Usha Nandhini contended that P.K. Nagaraj was impotent and ultimately, the Court granted a decree of divorce on 17.04.2003. It is submitted that Usha Nandhini alone was the legally married wife of P.K. Nagaraj and P.K. Nagaraj is incapable of becoming a father. Further, it is submitted that P.K. Nagaraj was a hail and healthy young man of 33 years and he was made a drunkard by the petitioner with an object to grab the properties of the P.K. Nagaraj with the help of one Mr. Gunasekaran who is a resident of Erode and false and fabricated document were created. It is further submitted that the petitioner was working as an Assistant in a beauty parlour and she had no income to purchase those properties at the relevant time. Further, it is submitted that the school records of K.Karthik the son of the petitioner clearly reveal that forgery has been committed by obtaining false birth certificate by forging the father's name of K.Karthik which was Kumar as Nagaraj, when the marriage between Nagaraj and Usha Nandhini was subsisting. Further, it is stated that the petitioner sold one Mahindra Scorpio vehicle owned by P.K. Nagaraj by forging his signature. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is not the legal heir of P.K. Nagaraj and the case as projected by the petitioner is absolutely false and the documents produced by her are forged documents and the circumstances in which P.K. Nagaraj died is suspicious, he was hurriedly cremated by the petitioner and the father of the petitioner's children is not P.K. Nagaraj, but Kumar which is clearly evident from the school record and other records of the child. Hence, it is submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 rightly directed that the dispute can be resolved only before a Civil Court and revoked the legal heirship certificate granted by the third respondent by order 05.06.2013, which was done without any enquiry.