Mayakkal Vs The Commissioner

Mayakkal vs The Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 30, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1547209

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1547209
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Decided On: Jan 30, 2026
Case Number: WP(MD)/3088/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mayakkal

Respondent

The Commissioner

Excerpt

.....3 to 5 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2024.2. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit thatthe petitioner has given a representation on 23.01.2024 stating that she is the wife of one kuppuraj and he passed away. she requested the authorities not to issue death certificate and legal heirship certificate to one rathinam, who claims that she is the wife of late kuppuraj. however, the representation is yet to be considered. hence, the writ petition.3. the learned special government pleader appearing for the second respondent would submit that the issue in the present case is civil in nature and therefore, he prayed for appropriate orders.4. i have given due consideration to either side submissions.5. in the present case, whether the petitioner is the wife of latekuppuraj or rathinam is the wife, cannot be decided before this court. if the petitioner claims that she is the wife of late kuppuraj, she has to approach the civil court to prove the same. once civil court passes an order, then this court can decide who is entitled to receive death certificate and legal heirship certificate of late kuppuraj. until then, the direction as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and there are no merits in this writ petition.6. accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 30.01.2026speaking / non-speaking orderindex : yes/no ncc : yes/no mbi to the tahsildar, court campus,krishnan ramasamy, j.mbi 30.01.2026

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.3088 of 2024 & W.M.P.(MD)No.3061 of 2024 Mayakkal ...Petitioner vs.
1. The Commissioner, Tirumangalam Municipality,
2. The Tahsildar, Court Campus,
3. Sivapandi
4. Vasanthakumar
5. Minor Kodipuli, S/o.Late Velmurugan, Door No. 3/85, Melaurapanur Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, (5th Respondent Represented Through 4th Respondent) ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from issuing death certificate and legal heirship certificate to Rathinam inferring her to be the wife of Late Kuppurasu at the instance of the respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader for R2 No appearance for R1

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from issuing death certificate and legal heirship certificate to Rathinam inferring her to be the wife of late Kuppurasu at the instance of the respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2024.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner has given a representation on 23.01.2024 stating that she is the wife of one Kuppuraj and he passed away. She requested the authorities not to issue death certificate and legal heirship certificate to one Rathinam, who claims that she is the wife of late Kuppuraj. However, the representation is yet to be considered. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent would submit that the issue in the present case is civil in nature and therefore, he prayed for appropriate orders.

4. I have given due consideration to either side submissions.

5. In the present case, whether the petitioner is the wife of late

Kuppuraj or Rathinam is the wife, cannot be decided before this Court. If the petitioner claims that she is the wife of late Kuppuraj, she has to approach the Civil Court to prove the same. Once Civil Court passes an order, then this Court can decide who is entitled to receive death certificate and legal heirship certificate of late Kuppuraj. Until then, the direction as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and there are no merits in this Writ Petition.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 30.01.2026

Speaking / Non-speaking order

Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi To The Tahsildar, Court Campus,

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

mbi 30.01.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Mayakkal vs The Commissioner Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy