CHROME LEATHER COMPANY LTD Vs. COLLECTOR KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has filed W. P. No. 33248 of 2007, challenging the order of the first respondent, District Collector, Kancheepuram dated 26. 02. 2007 and for direction against the first respondent to cancel the legal heir certificate dated 05. 08. 2001 issued by the second respondent, Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk in favour of the third respondent, and W. P. No. 33249 of 2007 challenging the legal heir certificate issued by the second respondent, Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk in favour of the third respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,1913 and the management of the Company was vested with one Gorge Alexander Chambers, who established the same. According to the petitioner Company, the said George Alexander Chambers has executed a Will converting his entire business into single limited liability, by sale of assets to the company the consideration being allotment of ordinary and preferential shares of the Company. After the death of the said George Alexander Chambers, certain legal proceedings were initiated and there was some compromise in the year 1965, which was recorded, by which the management of the petitioner Company was vested with the Directors, and thereafter, the Directors of the petitioner Company sold the entire shares to one Mr. Nagappa Chettiar and there was a reconstitution of Board of Directors with Nagappa Chettiar and his nominees, who took the petitioner Company along with its assets.

(3.) THE first respondent in the counter affidavit while admitting all the above said factual position, has stated that considering various documents placed on either side, the application of the petitioner was disposed of on 26. 09. 2007, stating that the Civil Court alone can assess the genuineness of the records produced by the third respondent and directing the petitioner to seek remedy through court of law. It is the further case of the first respondent that the second respondent has issued the legal heir certificate on 05. 08. 2001, based on the documents produced by the third respondent. It is the further case of the first respondent in the counter affidavit that various points raised by the petitioner show that the documents produced by the third respondent are forged documents, and the same are to be verified and the genuineness of the said documents has not been considered by the Tahsildar who, being the competent authority, can only issue the legal heir certificate based on the documents produced before him. 3 (a ). It is also denied that the enquiry regarding issuance of legal heir certificate was conducted in contravention of the guidelines issued. It is the further case of the first respondent that inasmuch as there was no application from the direct legal heirs of Late George Alexander Chambers, the application given by the third respondent was considered for issue of legal heir certificate. It is the case of the first respondent that the correctness of the documents produced before the authorities cannot be decided by them, but the same can be decided only by the Civil Court and in view of the said legal position, the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, since it was the petitioner, who has made a complaint against the second respondent, in respect of the legal heir certificate issued in favour of the third respondent.