Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
2. It has been stated that the Tahsildar, Alandur, the second respondent herein, had issued a legal heirship certificate, in Pa.Mu.No.3862/A6/2010, dated 29.9.2010, in favour of Rahamathunissa, the thirteen respondent herein, contrary to the procedures established by law and in violation of the guidelines issued for the grant of the legal heirship certificate, vide letter of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, No.1534, dated 28.11.1991. The Tahsildar, Alandur, had ignored the basic principles of the Shariath Law, which are applicable to the petitioners, as well as the thirteen respondent, while issuing the legal heirship certificate concerned.
3. It had been further stated that Rahamathunissa, the thirteen respondent herein, who is a muslim, had remarried R.Mohd Ilyas, the fourteen respondent herein, had approached the second respondent and had obtained the legal heirship certificate, without notice to the petitioners, who are the direct legal heirs of late C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman. Therefore, the legal heirship certificate, dated 29.9.2010, issued by the second respondent, is unsustainable in the eye of law, as it had been issued without following the relevant provisions of law and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. It had been further stated that the issuance of the impugned legal heirship certificate, by the second respondent herein, had enabled Rahamathunissa to sell the properties belonging to C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman, fraudulently, in connivance with the present husband and others, including the respondents 15 and 17 herein.
5. It had also been stated that, on coming to learn about the issuance of the legal heirship certificate, a copy of which had been received by the first petitioner, on 26.7.2011, a representation, dated 3.8.2011, had been sent to the second respondent, requesting him to revoke and to cancel the said legal heirship certificate, dated 29.9.2010. Since, the second respondent did not initiate any action, as requested by the first petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court to quash the impugned legal heirship certificate, dated 29.9.2010, issued by the second respondent and to direct the District Collector, Kancheepuram, the first respondent herein, to initiate appropriate action against the respondents 2 to 5 herein.
6. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5, it has been stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, either in law or on facts. It had been stated that one Rahamathunissa, wife of late C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman, had applied for a legal heirship certificate, on 29.7.2010, stating that her husband had died, on 18.1.2009, and indicating that there were only two legal heirs of her deceased husband, namely, C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman. The legal heirs indicated were herself and her mother. The application submitted by Rahamathunissa, had been sent to the Revenue Inspector, Alandur, for publication in the locality concerned, calling for objections, if any, within a period of seven days thereafter. The publication had been made by the Revenue Inspector, Alandur, on 29.7.2010, and by the Village Administrative Officer, Nandambakkam, on 15.9.2010. In the application, dated 29.7.2010, Rahamathunissa had not mentioned that she is a widow. However, in the publication notice, dated 29.7.2010, the Revenue Inspector, Alandur, had clearly stated that Rahamathunissa was a widow. It had also been published by the Village Administrative Officer, Nandambakkam, and necessary signatures had also been obtained from the public. The Village Administrative Officer concerned had returned the notice to the Revenue Inspector, Alandur, on 15.9.2010. Even though the process had taken more than 45 days to be completed, no objection had been received, either at the Taluk Office, or at the office of the Revenue Inspector, Alandur. Thereafter, the Revenue Inspector, Alandur, had conducted an enquiry and had obtained the statements of the Village Administrative Officer, Nandambakkam, and had also obtained a statement from C.A.Amina, who is the first petitioner in the present writ petition.
7. It had been stated that on verification of the signed statement given by C.A.Amina, during the month of September, 2010, to the Revenue Inspector, Alandur, it was clear that she had stated that her daughter-in-law namely, Rahamathunissa, had remarried one R.Mohd Ilyas, the fourteenth respondent herein, on 4.4.2010. Further, she had not raised any objection at the time of the signing of the statement. Therefore, the officers concerned had come to the conclusion that Rahamathunissa was a widow and that the only other legal heir was her mother Amina, the first petitioner herein. Accordingly, the second respondent herein had issued the legal heirship certificate to the direct legal heirs of the deceased C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman, as per the Government letter No.1534, Revenue Department, dated 28.11.1991.
8. It had been further stated that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioners, is not maintainable, as the issues raised in the writ petition, by the petitioners, involved disputed questions of fact, which are to be decided only by a competent civil court, based on evidence. As such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents 11, 15, 16 and 17, the averments and allegations made on behalf of the petitioners had been denied. It had been stated that the properties in question belonged to one late C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman, the son of the first petitioner, who had died intestate. The wife of late C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman, the thirteenth respondent herein, had subsequently married the fourteenth respondent.
10. It has also been stated that the issue raised by the petitioners regarding the issuance of the legal heirship certificate, by the second respondent, in favour of the thirteenth respondent, and the question regarding the validity of the sale deeds, said to have been registered, based on the said legal heirship certificate, cannot be gone into by this Court, as it involves disputed questions of fact. Further, Civil Suits had been filed, in O.S.No.781 of 2005 and O.S.No.97 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur. Further, a petition had also been filed before this Court, in Crl.O.P.No.21760 of 2011, relating to the dispute that had arisen amongst the petitioners and some of the respondents herein. While so, the petitioners had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, only with the mala fide intention of harassing the respondents in the writ petition, by abusing the process of law.
11. It had also been stated that the sale deeds registered, in respect of the properties said to be belonging to the petitioners, cannot be set aside by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned legal heirship certificate, dated 29.9.2010, issued by The Tahsildar, Alandur, the second respondent herein, and the sale deeds, said to have been registered, illegally, can only be agitated, by the petitioners, before the appropriate civil forum, as it involves serious disputed questions of fact. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner had raised a number of grounds emphasizing the illegality committed by the second respondent in the issuance of the impugned legal heirship certificate, dated 29.9.2010, in favour of Rahamathunissa, the thirteen respondent herein. He had also pointed out the discrepancies in the application submitted by Rahamathunissa, before the second respondent and in the impugned legal heirship certificate issued by the second respondent. He had submitted that no notice had been issued to the petitioners, who are also the legal heirs of the deceased, C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman.
13. He had also pointed out that the Sub-registrar, Srivilliputhur, had admitted that he had registered the sale deeds executed by the 13 respondent, in favour of the 17th respondent, based on the legal heirship certificate issued by the second respondent.
14. He had further submitted that the question as to whether the properties, which were the subject matter of the sale deeds, belonged, absolutely, to the late C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman, the son of the first petitioner and the brother of the second and the third petitioners, and as to whether he had purchased the same out of the self income and whether the petitioners had any right over the said properties are disputed questions of fact and therefore, they are to be settled before an appropriate civil Court, based on the oral and documentary evidence and therefore, the writ petition, filed by the petitioners, is not maintainable.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had further submitted that the properties belonging to the late C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman, the son of the first petitioner, had been sold by the 13th respondent, illegally, in collusion with certain third parties, including some of the respondents herein, without the knowledge and consent of the petitioners in the present writ petition.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had further submitted that the sale deeds registered in favour of the third parties fraudulently, could be set aside by the Sub-registrar concerned. He had further submitted that when the Chief Kazi is the appropriate authority to issue a legal heirship certificate, the second respondent had issued the impugned legal heirship certificate, dated 29.9.2010, arbitrarily and illegally, without making sufficient enquiries. As such, there has been a conspiracy to sell away the properties of the late C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman, without the consent of the petitioners, who are also his legal heirs, entitled to the properties in question. As such, the impugned legal heirship certificate, issued by the second respondent, and the sale deeds registered, based on the said legal heirship certificate, can be cancelled by the Sub-registrar concerned, based on the directions that may be issued by this Court, as they are illegal on the face of the records available.
17. He had further submitted that the decision, in YANALA MALLESHWARI Vs. ANANTHULA SAYAMMA (AIR 2007 ANDHRA PRADESH 57), relied on by the respondents, would not be applicable to the present case. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed.
18. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the writ petition, filed by the petitioners, is not maintainable before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, involves the interpretation of the Shariath law, as well as certain disputed questions of fact relating to the title, in respect of the properties concerned, and with regard to the legal heirs of late C.A.Mohamed Abdul Rahman, the son of the first petitioner. Further, the sale deeds registered by the Sub- registrar concerned, based on the legal heirship certificate issued by the second respondent, cannot be set aside by this Court, as it involves certain disputed factual aspects, which are to be established before an appropriate civil forum, by way of evidence. In fact, the sale deeds had been registered, validly, based on the legal heirship certificate issued by the second respondent. It is not for the Sub- registrar concerned to go into the details of the title of the properties in question, sought to be registered, by way of a detailed enquiry. In fact, the second writ petitioner had negotiated the settlement between the 13th respondent and the other legal heirs, including the 14th respondent, the present husband of Rahamathunissa.
19. It had also been submitted that, when mala fides are alleged against the authorities of the Government, who are shown as the respondents in the present writ petition, they are to be arrayed as parties, by name. As no specific allegations had been made out and proved by the petitioners, such allegations cannot be taken note of seriously.
20. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied on the decision, in E.THIRUMURTHY, E. AND ANOTHER Vs. COLLECTOR OF CHENNAI ETC. (1998 WRIT L.R.347) in support of his contentions.
21. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited supra, it is noted that the issues arising for consideration of this Court are disputed questions of fact, which are to be decided before an appropriate civil forum, by way of adducing evidence, in the manner known to law.
22. Even though various grounds had been raised on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter, as it is found to be appropriate to permit the petitioners to raise such issues before an appropriate civil forum to establish their claims, by way of an oral or documentary evidence.
23. It is also noted that certain allegations had been made against some of the respondents in the present writ petition, without showing them as parties, by name. Even otherwise, the issues relating to the issuance of the impugned legal heirship certificate, dated 29.9.2010, by the second respondent, especially, when it involves serious disputed questions of fact, and the issues relating to the registration of the sale deeds, alleged to have been registered, fraudulently, by the 13th respondent, in favour of third parties, cannot be gone into by this Court, at this stage. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to raise such issues before an appropriate civil forum and to substantiate their claims, by way of evidence. As such, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioners to agitate the matter, before an appropriate civil forum, by raising all the grounds available to them, including those which have been raised in the present writ petition, in the manner known to law. Further, it also goes without saying that, if any transfer is made, by the parties to the present writ petition, in respect of the properties in question, it would be subject to the final decision to be made by the civil forum concerned, before which, the matter may be agitated. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2011 are closed.
To:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KANCHIPURAM.