1

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT MUNSIF AT UDHAGAMANDALAM,

THE NILGIRIS

Present: Thiru. [Link], [Link]., B.L.,

DISTRICT MUNSIF, UDHAGAMANDALAM.

Thursday, the 23rd day of October 2025

O.S. No. 127 of 2021

(C.N.R. No. TNNS030 - 00174 - 2021)

R. Ravichandran ... Plaintiff

/Vs/

1. Smt. Singari (Since Deceased)*

2. Smt. Parvathy
3. R. Sivakumar
4. Smt. Mahalakshmi
5. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Collector of Nilgiris.
6. The Tahsildar, Udhagai, The Nilgiris. ... Defendants
*(Amended as per order in I.A. No. 01 of 2025, dated 09.04.2025)

This suit is came on 01.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of
Thiru. R. Sreedharan, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and of Thiru. B. Nepoliyan,
learned Counsel appearing for the defendants No. 2 to 4, and Thiru. S. Babu, learned
Government Pleader appearing for the defendants No. 5 and 6, and the 1 st Defendant
remaining exparte, upon hearing the arguments of the both side and upon having
stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff filed this suit for the relief of Declaration that the persons
as specified in the suit schedule are the legitimate Legal heir/representatives of
deceased J. Ramalingam son of late. Joghee Gowder who died on 27.04.2021 at

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 1/12

 2

Hallaty Village, Kadanadu, The Nilgiris and for Mandatory Injunction directing the
sixth Defendant to issue necessary Legal heirship certificate in favour of the persons
specified in the suit schedule in respect of deceased J. Ramalingam son of late.
Joghee Gowder who died on 27.04.2021 at Hallaty Village, Kadanadu, The Nilgiris
and for cost of the suit.

Gist of Plaint:
2. The brief averments of plaint is that, the 1 st defendant is the plaintiff's
mother, 2nd defendant is the 2nd wife of the plaintiff's father Mr. J. Ramalingam, and
the defendants 3 and 4 are the son and daughter of the 2 nd defendant. The plaintiff's
father J. Ramalingam, son of late. Joghee Gowder married the 1 st defendant as per the
Baduga custom, out of the said wedlock the plaintiff was born to them. Subsequent
to the said 1st marriage, the plaintiff's father had a 2 nd marriage with Smt. Parvathi (2nd
defendant), the defendants 3, 4 and one Vadivelan were born to them. On 27.04.2021
the plaintiff's father J. Ramalingam died intestate leaving behind his 1st wife
Singari(1st Defendant), 2nd wife Parvathi (Second defendant), 1st wife’s son
[Link](Plaintiff), 2nd wife’s son R. Sivakumar (3rd Defendant), 2nd wife’s
son [Link], 2nd wife’s daughter R. Mahalakshmi,(4th defendant) as his legal
representatives. The 2nd wife’s son said R. Vadivelan died as a bachelor on
03.07.2005, prior to the death of the father of the plaintiff. During the pendency of
this suit, the 1st defendant died intestate leaving the plaintiff herein as her sole legal
heir.

3. Since the demise of said J. Ramalingam, his legal representatives have

become the absolute joint owners of his assets and other liabilities. Except the above
stated legal heirs, the deceased J. Ramalingam have no other legal heirs. The plaintiff
is unable to formally inherit or mutate his name in revenue and panchayat records due
to lack of a legal heirship certificate. On 21.10.2021, the plaintiff has applied for the

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 2/12

 3

legal heirship certificate to the sixth defendant and after due enquiry, he was directed
by the 6th defendant to obtain it through a court of law, under their proceedings
[Link]. B2/2913/2021, dated 03.11.2021. The plaintiff has left with no other option,
filed this suit for declaration of heirship and a legal heirship certificate for J.
Ramalingam and also the plaintiff is finding very difficult to make use of the assets
belongs to the deceased J. Ramalingam.

4. Furthermore, the defendants No. 1 to 4 are not co-operating with the

plaintiff for getting necessary legal heir ship certificate and also making unwanted
protestation for issuance of legal heir ship certificate. The plaintiff has made
defendants No. 1 to 5, necessary parties to the suit for proper adjudication. During the
pendency of the main suit, the 1st defendant died intestate of leaving behind the
plaintiff as her sole legal heir. Hence the suit.

Gist of Written statement of Defendants No. 2 to 4:

5. The brief averments of written statement of the D-2 to D-4 side is that,
the entire allegations of plaint are denied, it is admitted that, the 2 nd defendant is the
wife of J. Ramalingam and mother of the defendants No. 3 and 4. The suit is deemed
unsustainable because, the plaintiff has not issued the mandatory notice under section
80 of Civil Procedure Code before filing the suit, as it involves the State of
Tamilnadu, rep. by the Collector of the Nilgiris and the Tahsildar, Ootacamund Taluk.
The said J. Ramalingam died intestate and claim of joint possession and enjoyment of
assets by the plaintiff with the defendants No. 1 to 3 are evidently false and
misleading. The suit has no valid cause of action and abuse of process of law and the
defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff more than the agreed and
legitimate amount. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with cost.

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 3/12

 4

Gist of Written statement of Defendants No. 5 and 6:

6. The defendant No.5 and 6 in their written statement assert that, the
plaintiff need to prove the testamentary position of Late. J. Ramalingam at the time of
his death, he has wedded twice in his life time to one Smt. Singari and one
Smt. Parvathi. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, a second marriage during the lifetime
of the 1st spouse is invalid, and thus, the 2nd wife cannot be a legal heir or claim
assets of late. J. Ramalingam. The plaintiff also needs to prove the death of
Mr. Vadivelan and the details of his legal heirs, as his absence could lead to
non-joinder of necessary parties. Upon discreet enquiry, the defendant believe that,
late. J. Ramalingam has left behind other legal heirs. The defendants No. 1 to 4 are
non-cooperative is untenable and the suit is also vitiated due to non-joinder of
necessary parties. Finally, the plaintiff neither sent the Sec. 80 of CPC notice to this
defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.

Issues framed:
7. On consideration of the pleadings of both sides this court framed the
following issues
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing the
6th defendant to issue Legal heir ship certificate as prayed for?
(iii) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

Plaintiff side evidence:

8. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff Mr. R. Ravichandran examined
himself as Pw-1, through him Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 were marked. The Pw-1 was cross
examined by the defendants side in full. The plaintiff side evidence was closed with
Pw-1.

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 4/12

 5

Defendants 2 to 4 side evidence:

9. On the side of defendants 2 and 3, the 3 rd defendant Mr. R. Sivakumar
examined himself as Dw-1 through him no exhibits were marked. The Dw-1 was
cross examined in full by the plaintiff side. During the cross examination of the
Dw-1, the Ex. A-6 and Ex. A-7 were marked on the plaintiff’s side. The evidence of
defendant side is closed with Dw-1.

Defendants No. 5 and 6 side evidence:

10. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the defendants
5 and 6.

Points for consideration:

11. Heard the arguments advanced by both side learned counsels. The
pleadings, evidence on record, and the documents marked as exhibits on both sides
have been carefully perused. The main issue to be decided in this case is that, whether
the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as
prayed for. To decide the above, this court has framed the above stated three issues.
Since, all the three issues are relevant to each other and arise out of the same set of
facts, all the three issues have been discussed jointly in the following paragraphs, to
avoid repetition of the facts and for the brevity of the Judgment.

12. The Plaintiff’s Case is that, his father Mr. J. Ramalingam married the
1st defendant and that he was born out of the said wedlock. Subsequently, the said
Mr. J. Ramalingam married the 2nd defendant as second wife, and through her,
defendants 3 and 4 and one Mr. Vadivelan were born. The said Mr. Vadivelan died
unmarried in the year 2005. The father of the plaintiff, Mr. J. Ramalingam, died on
27.04.2021, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs.
During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant also died, leaving the plaintiff as
her sole legal heir, and the plaint was amended accordingly. When the plaintiff

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 5/12

 6

applied for the legal heirship certificate, the 6 th defendant directed the plaintiff to
approach the civil court and hence this suit is filed for declaring the plaint schedule
mentioned persons as the legal heirs of the deceased J. Ramalingam and to direct the
6th defendant to issue legal heirship certificate accordingly.

13. The case of the Defendants 2 to 4 is that, the 2nd defendant is the wife of
late Mr. J. Ramalingam and that defendants 3 and 4 were born through their wedlock.
They further contend that the plaintiff’s alleged relationship with Mr. J. Ramalingam
is not proved. Further, the case of the Defendants 5 and 6 is that, upon discreet
enquiry, it was found that the deceased Mr. J. Ramalingam had other legal heirs, and
that the death of Mr. Vadivelan was not proved by the plaintiff. It is further stated that
as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the 2 nd wife cannot claim any legal
status. The suit is also alleged to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and for
not issuing notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

14. As stated above, The plaintiff examined himself as Pw-1 and marked
Exs. A-1 to A-5. The 3rd defendant examined herself as Dw-1, no exhibits marked on
the defendants 2 to 4 side, but during the cross examination of the Dw-1, on the
plaintiff side Ex. A-6 and A-7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was
adduced on behalf of defendants 5 and 6.

15. During cross-examination, Pw-1 admitted that, he had not mentioned the
date and place of marriage between the 1st defendant and the deceased
J. Ramalingam in the plaint, the name of the 1st defendant does not find place in
Ex. A-1, the school transfer certificate produced by him, he has not produced any
document to prove the marriage between the 1st defendant and the deceased
J. Ramalingam, he has not produced any documentary proof to establish that he is the
legal heir of the deceased J. Ramalingam, he does not know whether the 1 st defendant
is alive now, he has not filed any document to prove that the 1st defendant is his

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 6/12

 7

mother, he has not produced any proof to show the birth and death of Mr. Vadivelan.
The relevant portions of the deposition of the Pw-1 is extracted hereunder.
“1-ஆம் பிரதிவவாதிக்கும், இறந்த ரவாமலிங்கத்திற்கும் எந்த தததியில, எந்த இடத்தில
திருமணம் ஆனது என்று எனது வவாதுரரயில குறிப்பிட்டுள்தளேனவா என்றவால , இலரல. நவான்
தவாக்கல சசெய்துள்ளே வவா.செவா.ஆ.1 மவாற்றுச்செவான்றிதழில 1-ஆம் பிரதிவவாதியின் சபெயரில இலரல
என்றவால செரிதவான். 1-ஆம் பிரதிவவாதி மற்றும் இறந்த ரவாமலிங்கத்திற்கும் திருமணம்
நரடசபெற்றது என்பெரத நிரூபிப்பெதற்கும் தமலும் தமற்பெடி 1-ஆம் பிரதிவவாதி மற்றும்
ரவாமலிங்கத்திற்கு நவான் வவாரிசு என்பெரத நிரூபிப்பெதற்கும் ஆவணங்கள் எதுவும் தவாக்கல
சசெய்யவிலரல என்றவால, செரிதவான்.”

“ 1-ஆம் பிரதிவவாதி சிங்கவாரிக்கும், ரவாமலிங்கத்திற்கும் என்ன உறவுமுரற என்பெரத

நவான் எனது வவாதுரரயில குறிப்பெவாக சசெவாலலியுள்தளேனவா என்றவால இலரல. 1-ஆம் பிரதிவவாதி
சிங்கவாரிக்கும், ரவாமலிங்கத்திற்கும் எப்தபெவாது திருமணம் ஆனது என்ற விபெரத்ரத வவாதுரரயில
கூறியுள்தளேனவா என்றவால இலரல.” …“ 1-ஆம் பிரதிவவாதி தற்தபெவாது உயிருடன் உள்ளேவாரவா
என்ற விபெரம் எனக்கு சதரியவாது.”

“ ரவாமலிங்கத்திற்கும், இரண்டவாம் பிரதிவவாதி பெவார்வதிக்கும் எப்தபெவாது திருமணம் நடந்தது

என்ற விபெரத்ரத நவான் எனது வவாதுரரயில சசெவாலலவிலரல என்றவால, எப்தபெவாது நடந்தது
என்ற விபெரம் எனக்கு சதரியவாது. 1-ஆம் பிரதிவவாதி எனது அம்மவா என்பெரத நிரூபிக்க
ஆவணம் ஏததனும் தவாக்கல சசெய்துள்தளேனவா என்றவால இலரல.”

“வடிதவலு என்ற நபெர் பிறந்ததற்கும், பின்பு இறந்ததவாக சசெவாலவதற்கும் ஆவணங்கள்

ஏததனும் இந்நீதிமன்றத்தில தவாக்கல சசெய்துள்தளேனவா என்றவால இலரல.”

“1-ம் பிரதிவவாதி எனது தவாயவார் என்பெரத நிரூபிக்க ஆவணம் ஏததனும் உள்ளேதவா

என்றவால இலரல.”… “வடிதவலு இறந்ததற்கவான ஆவணங்கள் எதுவும் என்னிடம் இலரல,
அந்த செமயத்தில நவான் ரவாணுவத்தில பெணியவாற்றி வந்ததன். ஆனவால அவர் இறந்த தததி எனது
வவாதுரரயில கூறியுள்தளேன்.”

16. Further, on perusal of the Ex. A-1, the transfer certificate, there is no
mention about the name of the mother of the plaintiff. Further, on perusal of the
Ex. A-2 Adhaar Card of the plaintiff, the father’s name of the plaintiff was not stated
in the same. Further, on perusal of the Ex. A-3, the death certificate of the

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 7/12

 8

[Link], it is found that, his wife name is stated as Parvathi. Further, mere on
the basis of the Ex. A-6 and Ex. A-7, the plaint and written statement filed in O.S. No.
299 of 2022 on the file of the Honourable Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam, it
cannot be taken as proved that, the plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased J.
Ramalingam and the 1st defendant.

17. Further, as discussed above, the plaintiff had failed to prove that, he is
the son of the 1st defendant and the deceased J. Ramalingam. Even after the death of
the 1st defendant during the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff had failed to prove
through valid legal heirship certificate, that he is the sole legal heir of the deceased 1 st
defendant. Thus, the plaintiff miserably failed to prove that, he is the legal heir of the
deceased J. Ramalingam.

18. It is an admitted fact by either side that Mr. J. Ramalingam is no more.

The plaintiff claims to be the son of J. Ramalingam through the 1 st defendant Singari.
However, the burden of proof lies entirely upon the plaintiff to establish (i) the valid
marriage between the 1st defendant and the deceased J. Ramalingam, and (ii) his birth
through such marriage. During cross-examination, the plaintiff candidly admitted that
he has not mentioned the date or place of marriage, nor produced any documentary
proof to show that the 1st defendant and the deceased lived together as husband and
wife.

19. Similarly, though the plaintiff alleges that Mr. Vadivelan, the son of the
2nd defendant, died unmarried in 2005, no death certificate or other document has
been filed to substantiate the same. As regards the 2nd defendant to 4th defendant, they
have only admitted that the 2 nd defendant was the wife of the deceased
J. Ramalingam, not that she was his second wife. However, even assuming such
marriage was during the subsistence of the first marriage, under Section 11 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, it would be void. But the children born out of such marriage,

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 8/12

 9

namely defendants 3 and 4, are legitimate under Section 16(1) and entitled to succeed
to their father’s estate.

20. Thus, form the above discussions, it is found that, the plaintiff failed to
establish that, he is the son of the deceased J. Ramalingam and the 1 st Defendant
Singari. Since the plaintiff failed to establish his parentage or a valid marriage
between the 1st defendant and J. Ramalingam, he cannot be declared as a legal heir of
the deceased.

21. Further, As the plaintiff has failed to establish his relationship with the
deceased J. Ramalingam and the 1st defendant, and has also failed to prove the death
of the alleged son Mr. Vadivelan, he is not entitled to the declaration as prayed for.
Thus, the issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

22. As it is decided that, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of
declaration as prayed for, the plaintiff is also not entitled for the relief of mandatory
injunction as prayed for. Thus the issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

23. Since, it is decided that, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of
declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for, the plaintiff is not entitled for any
other relief in this suit. Thus the issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.

24. The objections raised under Section 80 the Code of Civil procedure by
the defendants is not a material one when the defendants 5 and 6 were given
opportunity to contest the case in full. Further, the defence of non-joinder of
necessary parties raised by the defendants No. 5 and 6 was not proved through valid
oral and documentary evidence and hence, the said defence is not acceptable.

25. Considering the facts, nature and circumstances of the suit, both parties
are directed to bear their own cost.

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 9/12

 10

RESULT:
26. In the result, this suit is dismissed without cost.

This judgment is dictated to the steno typist, typed by her in computer,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 23rd day of October 2025.
Digitally signed
by
LOGANATHAN
LOGANATHAN PRAKASH
PRAKASH
Date:
2025.10.23
16:40:45 +0530
DISTRICT MUNSIF,
UDHAGAMANDALAM

Plaintiff side Witnesses:-

1. R. Ravichandran - PW-1 (Plaintiff)

Plaintiff side documents :-

[Link] Date Documents Nature of Exhibits

Documents
1. 11.07.1984 School Transfer Certificate of Photostat Copy Ex. A-1
the Plaintiff (Compared with
Original)
2. - Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff Photostat Copy Ex. A-2
(Compared with Original)
3. 20.05.2021 Death Certificate of Online Photostat Ex. A-3
Mr. [Link]. Copy
4. 21.10.2021 Application submitted to 6th Photostat Copy Ex. A-4
Defendant by the Plaintiff
5. 03.11.2021 Memo issued by the 6th Photostat Copy Ex. A-5
Defendant to the Plaintiff
6. - Plaint in O.S. No. 299/2022 Certified Ex. A-6
Photostat Copy
7. - Written Statement of D2, D3 Certified Ex. A-7
and D4 in O.S. No. 299/2022 Photostat Copy

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 10/12

 11

Defendants 2 to 4 side Witnesses:-

1. R. Sivakumar - Dw-1 ( 3rd Defendant)

Defendants 2 to 4 side Documents :- NIL

Defendants 5 and 6 side witness and documents: NIL

Digitally signed
by
LOGANATHAN
LOGANATHAN PRAKASH
PRAKASH Date:
2025.10.23
16:40:52
+0530
DISTRICT MUNSIF,
UDHAGAMANDALAM.

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 11/12

12

Draft / Fair Judgment:

O.S. No. 127of 2021
Date: 23.10.2025
District Munsif Court,
Udhagamandalam

O.S. No. 127/2021, DM., UAM., Page No. 12/12