These second appeals have been preferred against the concurrent Judgments passed in Original Suit No.323 of 1995 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram and in Appeal Suit No.20 of 2000 by the Principal District court, Ramanathapuram.
2. The appellant in Second Appeal No.347 of 2005 as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.323 of 1995 on the file of the trial Court praying to declare that the legal heir certificate issued in favour of the first defendant by the third defendant is erroneous.
3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the wife of the deceased M.Karmegam, a resident of Thillainayagapuram Village. He married one Ramukannu as his first wife and she died issueless. After her demise, he married the plaintiff as his second wife. The said Karmegam has passed away on 08.10.1994 leaving behind him the plaintiff as his only legal heir. During his life time, he has openly stated that he has had no issues. The first defendant has tried to obtain a certificate from the third defendant as the legal heir of the deceased Karmegam. The plaintiff has issued legal notice to the third defendant. But the third defendant without considering the objection raised on the side of the plaintiff, has erroneously issued a legal heir certificate in favour of the first defendant as if she is the only legal heir of the deceased Karmegam. The first defendant has had no connection whatsoever with the deceased Karmegam. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the relief sought for in the plaint.
4. In the written statement filed on the side of the first defendant it is averred that it is false to contend that the deceased Karmegam has married one Ramukannu as his first wife and after his demise she married the plaintiff as his second wife. The deceased Karmegam has married the mother of the first defendant by name Kalimuthu and both of them have been blessed with the first defendant. It is false to contend that the first defendant is not the daughter of the deceased Karmegam. The first defendant is the only daughter of the deceased Karmegam. The third defendant after conducting a detailed enquiry has issued a legal certificate in favour of the first defendant as if she is the only legal heir of the deceased Karmegam. The plaintiff has filed the present suit with sinister motive. The deceased Karmegam has brought up the first defendant and conducted her marriage. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves dismissal.
5. In the written statement filed on the side of the third defendant, it is averred that the deceased Karmegam has married the mother of the first defendant and they lived for a period of ten years and subsequently the mother of the first defendant has left the deceased and now she is living with one Gurunathan. The deceased Karmegam has married one Ramukannu as his second wife. The third defendant after conducting enquiry has issued a legal heir certificate in favour of the first defendant as if she is the only legal heir of the deceased Karmegam. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves dismissal.
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has filed Appeal Suit No.20 of 2000 on the file of the first appellate court. With regard to the finding given by the trial Court to the effect that the plaintiff and first defendant are the legal heirs of the deceased Karmegam, the first defendant has filed cross Objection.
7. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed both the first appeal as well as cross objection. Against the concurrent Judgments passed by the Courts below, the plaintiff as appellant has filed Second Appeal No.347 of 2005 and the first defendant as appellant has filed Second Appeal No.1007 of 2004.
8. At the time of admitting the present second appeals, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for consideration:
Second Appeal No.347 of 2005:
"(i) whether the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted in questioning the decision of the Revenue Authorities?
(ii) Whether the legal heir certificate issued by the Revenue authorities is final and finding and the same cannot be questioned in civil Court?
(iii) Are not the Courts infer adverse inference against the contentions of the first respondent when she is withholding the best evidence available in her favour?
(iv) Is not the suit maintainable for negative declaration by the appellant when her civil right is disputed or affected?"
Second Appeal No.1007 of 2004:
"(i) whether the Courts below are right in holding that the first respondent/plaintiff is also a legal heir of the deceased Karmegam along with the appellant herein, when admittedly the first wife of Karmegam is alive and there was no valid evidence for divorce of the said first wife?
(ii) Whether the courts below are right in holding that the first respondent as the third wife of the deceased Karmegam can be given validity to the marriage, when the marriage is void in law under section 5 and section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act?"
9. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, common Judgment is pronounced.
10. The crux of the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the second wife of one Karmegam, a resident of Thillainayagapuram Village and he married one Ramukannu as his first wife and after her demise, he married the plaintiff as his second wife and he passed away on 08.10.1994 leaving behind him the plaintiff as his only legal heir. The first defendant has manoeuvred to get a legal heir certificate from the third defendant as if she is the legal heir of the deceased Karmegam. Under the said circumstances the present suit has been filed so as to declare that the certificate issued by the third defendant in favour of the first defendant is erroneous.
11. On the side of the first and third defendants, it has been contended that the deceased Karmegam has married the mother of the first defendant by name Kalimuthu as his first wife and both of them have been blessed with the first defendant and the said Kalimuthu has left the deceased Karmegam and now she is living with one Gurunathan and the said Karmegam has passed away leaving behind him the first defendant as his only legal heir. Under the said circumstances, the third defendant after conducting a detailed enquiry has issued the legal heir certificate in question and therefore, the present suit deserves dismissal.
12. The Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff and the first defendant are the legal heirs of the deceased Karmegam and ultimately dismissed the suit.
13. The only point that comes up for consideration in both the appeals is to as to whether the concurrent Judgments passed by the Courts below are perfectly correct or the same require interference.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Second Appeal No.347 of 2005 has ingeniously contended that the present suit has been instituted praying to declare that the legal heir certificate issued by the third defendant in favour of the first defendant is erroneous and in fact, the third defendant has no legal authority to issue such a certificate and the Courts below without considering the nature of the relief as well as scope of the suit, have erroneously found that the plaintiff and the first defendant are the legal heirs of the deceased Karmegam and therefore, the concurrent Judgments passed by the Courts below are liable to be interfered with.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/first defendant as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent/third defendant have uniformly contended that the deceased Karmegam has married the mother of the first defendant by name Kalimuthu as his first wife and both of them have been blessed with the first defendant and after a period of ten years the said Kalimuthu has left the said Karmegam and subsequently the said Karmegam has married one Ramukannu as his second wife and thereafter he passed away leaving behind him the first defendant as his only legal heir and the third defendant after conducting a detailed enquiry has issued the legal heir certificate in question in favour of the first defendant as if she is the only legal heir of the deceased Karmegam and the third defendant is a competent authority to issue such a certificate and therefore, the present suit is not legally maintainable. Under the said circumstances the concurrent Judgments passed by the Courts below with regard to dismissal of suit are perfectly correct and further the Courts below have erroneously found that the plaintiff is also one of the legal heirs of the deceased Karmegam and therefore Second Appeal No.347 of 2005 is liable to be dismissed and Second Appeal No.1007 of 2004 is liable to be allowed.
16. Basing upon the rival submissions made by either counsel, the Court has to look into the nature of the relief sought for in the plaint as well as the legal authority of the third defendant to issue the legal heir certificate in question.
17. The legal heir certificate issued by the third defendant in favour of the plaintiff and first defendant has been marked as Ex.B5. Only on the basis of Ex.B5 the Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff and first defendant are the legal heirs of the deceased Karmegam.
18. The present suit has been filed for declaring that the legal heir certificate issued by the third defendant is erroneous. Therefore, as stated earlier, the Court has to look into as to whether the third defendant is a competent authority to issue such a certificate.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Second Appeal No.347 of 2005 has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 2002 (2) CTC 228 (N.Dhanalakshmi Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Salem and 2 others), wherein this Court has clinchingly held that "there is no provision which had conferred power on the Revenue Authorities such as Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer, District Revenue Officer to decide as to who is the legal heir or who is the successor of a deceased individual. In case of dispute as to succession or inheritance the parties have go before the competent civil Court. The competent civil Court is bound to decide the dispute as to who is the legal heir and who is entitled to the properties or assets left by the deceased. The certificates, if any issued by the Revenue Officer like Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer will not in any manner affect the rights accrued to the individual by way of succession. Further it has been held that the legal heir certificates issued by the Revenue Officers have no sanctity in law".
20. From the close reading of the decision referred to supra, it is pellucid that the Revenue Officers have no legal authority to issue any legal heir certificate and the only remedy to the concerned parties is to approach competent civil Court.
21. In the instant case, as stated earlier, Ex.B5 has been issued in favour of the plaintiff as well as first defendant as if they are the legal heirs of the deceased Karmegam. As per the decision referred to supra, the third defendant has had no legal authority to issue such kind of certificate. The present suit has been instituted with a limited scope of declaring that the certificate issued by the third defendant is erroneous. Therefore, the power of the Court has also been restricted to the extent as to whether the relief claimed in the plaint can be granted or not. But the Courts below without considering the scope of the suit as well as the relief sought for therein, have erroneously accepted Ex.B5 and given a finding to the effect that both the plaintiff and third defendant are the legal heirs of the deceased Karmegam. The present suit has not been filed for declaring the alleged legal heirs of the deceased Karmegam. Therefore, the Courts below without considering the scope of the suit as well as the nature of the relief sought for therein have given supernumerary finding. Under the said circumstances, the concurrent Judgments passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside and Original Suit No.323 of 1995 is liable to be decreed as prayed for. Therefore, it is quite clear that all the substantial questions of law framed in Second Appeal No.347 of 2005 are legally and factually acceptable and whereas, the substantial questions of law framed in Second Appeal No.1007 of 2004 are not legally and factually sustainable and altogether Second Appeal No.347 of 2005 is liable to be allowed and whereas, Second Appeal No.1007 of 2004 is liable to be dismissed.
22. In fine, Second Appeal No.347 of 2005 is allowed without cost. The Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.323 of 1995 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, upheld in Appeal Suit No.20 of 2000 by the Principal District court, Ramanathapuram are set aside and Original Suit No.323 of 1995 is decreed as prayed for without cost.
23. Second Appeal No.1007 of 2007 is dismissed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. However, the plaintiff and first defendant are at liberty to file a civil suit before competent civil forum so as to establish their legal status.
mj To
1.The Principal District court, Ramanathapuram
2.The Additional District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram