Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the event of the petitioner obtaining any document to establish their relationship with Veerammah and to prove that the said Veerammah had returned…
Judgment
WP No.5630 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.02.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAW.P.No.5630 of 2026and W.M.P.No.6109 of 2026P.Sundarraj... PetitionerVs.
The District Collector, Namakkal District.
TheDistrict Revenue Officer, Namakkal District.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal Division, Namakkal District.
The Tahsildar, Namakkal Tahsildar Office, Namakkal District ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Moo. Mo.8238/2025/C1 dated 22.08.2025 by confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in Moo. Mo.5251/2024/A5 dated 23.01.2025 and quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.5630 of 2026respondent to issue death certificate for the above Veerammah daughter of Perumal and wife of Kondan by considering documents produced by the petitioner and conducting property enquiry with villagers of the Melappatti Melmugan Vilalge, Namakkal Taluk and District. For Petitioner: Mr. A.SathishkumarFor Respondents-1 to 3: Ms.R.L.Karthika, Government AdvocateO R D E RThis writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Moo.
Mo.8238/2025/C1 dated 22.08.2025 by confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in Moo. Mo.5251/2024/A5 dated 23.01.2025 and quash the same and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to issue the death certificate for the above Veerammah daughter of Perumal and wife of Kondan by considering documents produced by the petitioner and conducting proper enquiry with the villagers of the Melappatti Melmugan Village, Namakkal Taluk and District.” 2. The writ petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 22.08.2025 in and by which the petitioner’s request for 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.5630 of 2026issuance of a death certificate in respect of his junior maternal grandmother has been denied.3. The petitioner’s case is that his maternal grandmother, Sinnammah, D/o. Perumal and W/o. Veeran had a younger sister Veerammah who is the wife of Kondan. Both of them were residents of Melapatti Melmugam Village, Namakkal Taluk and District.
The said Sinnammah had gone to Srilanka as an Estate Worker in the year 1981 and Veerammah had gone much before her in the year 1974. Thereafter, Sinnammah returned to Rameswaram in the year 1982 whereas Veerammah returned on 03.05.1977. They resided at Melapatti Melmugam village till their demise.4. The said Veerammah had obtained a Ration Card bearing No.371898 and also possessed an identity receipt No.512005. Sinnammah passed away on 04.07.1983 and Veerammah passed away on 13.08.1990. The said Veerammah had only one daughter Angayi who also died without leaving any legal heirs. Therefore, the petitioner has made an application before the 3rd respondent on 15.12.2023 for issuance of the death certificates of his maternal grandmother Sinnammah and her younger sister Veerammah. The 4th respondent, without conducting a proper enquiry, had submitted a 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.5630 of 2026report stating that after her marriage, Veerammah had left India and that there was no information about her thereafter.
Relying upon this report, the 3rd respondent rejected the application. The petitioner had thereafter filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent also followed suit and rejected the petitioner’s appeal by the order impugned in this writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously argue that the orders have been passed based on the report of the Village Administrative Officer who had not conducted a proper enquiry and that a direction may be issued to the Village Administrative Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry.
A perusal of the documents would show that except for the passport, in which certain endorsements have been made, no document whatsoever has been filed on the side of the petitioner to establish their relationship with the said Veerammah. The Village Administrative Officer has conducted an enquiry in the locality and, upon enquiry with the villagers, reported that after their departure to Sri Lanka, there was no news about the said Veerammah. The reference to the ration card in the affidavit is an 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.5630 of 2026endorsement in the passport issued by the Indian High Commission at Kandy, wherein it is stated that the name of the said Veerammah, the passport holder, should be included in the ration card. This endorsement is dated 17.03.1977, and the petitioner would contend that she returned to India on 03.05.1977. The authorities below have taken into consideration the total lack of evidence on the side of the petitioner to show (a) that Veerammah had returned to India, and (b) that they are the only legal heir of the said Veerammah.
Operative part
In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the event of the petitioner obtaining any document to establish their relationship with Veerammah and to prove that the said Veerammah had returned to India and continued to reside here, the request shall be considered in accordance with law upon their making a fresh application. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.17.02.2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking Order : Yes / Nosrn5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.5630 of 2026To1. The District Collector, Namakkal District. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Namakkal District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal Division, Namakkal District.4. The Tahsildar, Namakkal Tahsildar Office, Namakkal District 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.5630 of 2026 P.T. ASHA, J, srnW.P.No.5630 of 2026and W.M.P.No.6109 of 202617.02.20267/7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.