Madras High Court
S.Saranya vs B.Ponnusamy on 27 April, 2023
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 17.03.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
O.P.No.598 of 2019
S.Saranya ... Petitioner
vs.
1.B.Ponnusamy
2.P.Lakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Original Petition filed under under Section 372 of the Indian
Succession Act r/w under Order XXV Rule 6 of the Original Side Rules
to issue a Succession Certificate to the petitioner with power to collect
the debts and to receive the interest specified in the schedule hereto.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.L.Ramesh
For Respondents :Mr.R.Balasubramanian
****
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
This petition had been filed under Section 372 of Indian
Succession Act, 1985 and under relevant provisions of the Original Side
Rules seeking succession certificate relating to the dues belonging to the
deceased P.Ponnudurai.
2.The petitioner claims that she is the wife of Late P.Ponndurai.
She claimed that they got married on 20.01.2016 in accordance with the
Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage was also registered with the Sub
Registrar of Marriages on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sembiam in
Chennai. The first and second respondents are the parents of P.Ponndurai.
It had been therefore claimed that the petitioner and the second
respondent are the only Class-I legal heir to succeed to the estate of
P.Ponndurai, in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act,
1956.
3.The petitioner claims that her husband, P.Ponndurai, died
2/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
intestate on 21.06.2017 at Chennai. He was working as Assistant
Manager at Ramanujam IT City, TRIL Infopark Limited-SEZ, Taramani,
Chennai. The petitioner claims that she approached the said Company
for payment of dues which had accrued to the said P.Ponnudurai. She
had also sent a legal notice. The said company then issued a reply calling
the petitioner to obtain Succession Certificate. It is under these
circumstances, this petition had been filed seeking Succession
Certificate.
4.A counter affidavit had been filed by the first respondent,
B.Ponnusamy, which was adopted by the second respondent. It must be
kept in mind that they are the parents of Late.P.Ponnudurai.
5.In the counter affidavit, it had been stated that P.Ponnudurai had
studied MCA and after completion of his Masters degree, he got job in
City Corp, Ramanujam I.T., Park, Chennai, where, he was working from
2015 onwards. He stayed in a private room near by his office. He had
raised a loan from a private bank. It was stated that a call was received
3/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on 21.06.2017 at 02.00 am that P.Ponnudurai had died and asking the
respondents to come to Chennai. Both the respondents came to Chennai
and went to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital at 04.30 am at
22.06.2017. Then they made some enquiries and were informed that the
petitioner herein is said to have married P.Ponnudurai. They made further
enquiries with one one Srinivasan, father of the petitioner, but the
respondents were threatened.
6.Thereafter, they claimed that their signatures were forcibly
obtained by the Sub Inspector of Police, J.J.Nagar Police Station, at
Chennai. They then took the body to their native place. They buried the
body according to their customs. They claimed that the petitioner did not
come for the burial. They further claimed that P.Ponnudurai had never
married the petitioner herein. They claimed that P.Ponnudurai was
murdered by the petitioner and her family members. They claimed that
substantial amounts had been transferred to the petitioner's account from
P.Ponnudurai's account to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/-.
4/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.They lodged a complaint before the J.J.Nagar Police Station. But
however, no action was taken. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had
obtained legal heirship certificate from the Tahsildar, Thiruvallur, by
suppressing real facts. The respondents alleged that the petitioner's
father, Srinivasan, who was working in the Secretariat, had misused the
power and obtained a bogus marriage certificate, as if the marriage was
conducted at Siva Vishnu Temple at Periyar Nagar, Chennai by giving a
false address.
8.The petitioner also filed a suit for partition relating to the
property at Baitakodiambedu Village, Nagalapuram Mandalam, Chittor
District, Andhra Pradesh. The suit in O.S.No.205 of 2018 had been filed
before the District Munsif Court Sathyavedu, Andhra Pradesh.
9.The respondents then filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.35527 of
2019 to revoke the legal heirship certificate. The respondents denied that
the petitioner married their son. They claimed that they are alone the
legal heirs of P.Ponnudurai. They sought dismissal of this petition.
5/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.It must be mentioned that both this petition and the above Writ
Petition were directed to be heard together. But the Writ Petition was
independently listed before a learned Single Judge and was dismissed.
Thereafter, this petition was listed for further hearing before this Court.
11.On the basis of the rival pleadings, the parties were directed to
tender evidence.
12.During trial, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and
marked Ex-P1 to Ex-P21. The first respondent examined himself as RW-
1 and the Managing Trustee of the Temple, namely, Siva Vishnu Temple
at Periyar Nagar, Chennai, was examined as RW-2. The respondents
marked Ex-R1 to Ex-R18.
13.Ex-P1 was the copy of the marriage invitation, dated
20.01.2016, Ex-P2 was the copy of the marriage registration certificate,
6/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 10.03.2016, Ex-P3 was the computer generated death certificate of
P.Ponnusamy, dated 30.04.2018, Ex-P4 was the legal heir certificate of
Ponnudurai, dated 10.05.2018, Ex-P5 was the copy of the Aadhar Card of
P.Ponnudurai, Ex-P6, Ex-P7, Ex-P8, Ex-P9 and Ex-P10 were the legal
notices and correspondences exchanged with Citycorp Services India
Private Limited, Ex-P11 was the paper publication, dated 04.01.2020 in
Thina Boomi, Ex-P12, Ex-P13, Ex-P14, Ex-P15, Ex-P16, Ex-P17, Ex-
P18, Ex-P19 were photographs of the marriage between the petitioner
and the deceased P.Ponnudurai, which were marked during the cross
examination of RW-1. Ex-P20 and Ex-21 were photographs of the
marriage ceremony, marked during the cross of RW-2.
14.Ex-R1 was a marriage invitation of the petitioner with another
individual, S.Pradeep, Ex-R2 was the copy of advance receipt paid to
Kalyana Mandapam, Ex-R3 was a bill, Ex-R4, R5 and R6 were the
photographs and CDs of marriage ceremony, Ex-R7 was the copy of FIR,
Ex-R8 and Ex-R9 were the details of call logs, Ex-R10 was the statement
of accounts of City Bank, Ex-R11 was the statement of accounts of City
7/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Union Bank, Ex-R12 was the statement of accounts of City Bank, Ex-
R13 was the affidavit filed in W.P.No.35527 of 2019, Ex-R14 was an
affidavit filed in W.P.No.6743 of 2020, Ex-R15 was the copy of the plaint
in the suit filed by the petitioner before the District Munsif Court,
Sathyavedu, Ex-R16 was the affidavit of the first respondent in the said
suit, Ex-R17 was the family member certificate issued by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ex-R18 was the application filed by
the first respondent to the temple. These documents have been marked
during the cross examination of RW-1.
15.The issues which arise for consideration are:
(1)Whether the evidence produced by the petitioner is sufficient to
hold that the petitioner had married P.Ponnudurai?
(2)Whether the contention of the respondents that there was no
lawful marriage between the petitioner and P.Ponnudurai had been
established by the respondents?
(3)Whether the contention of the respondents that remarriage
8/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would disentitle the petitioner to be granted the relief sought is legally
correct?
(4)Whether the petitioner is entitled for succession certificate as
sought by her in the petition?
(5)Whether the second respondent/mother of P.Ponnudurai is also
entitled for succession certificate?
(6)To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to?
16.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
Mr.R.Balasubramanian, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
17.It is the contention of Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned Counsel for
petitioner that the petitioner had married P.Ponnudurai, son of the
respondents herein on 20.01.2016 and subsequently, the marriage had
been registered in the Registrar of Marriage in Office of the Sub
9/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Registrar, Sembiam at Chennai. The learned Counsel stated that in
accordance with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the
petitioner and the second respondent alone can be recognised as Class-I
legal heir.
18.The learned Counsel also stated that P.Ponnudurai,
unfortunately died on 21.06.2017 and stated that succession to his estate
opened up on that particular date. The learned Counsel stated that on
that particular date, the petitioner and the second respondent alone could
be categorised as Class-I legal heir. The learned Counsel further stated
that the contentions of the respondents that there was no lawful marriage
and that the petitioner was not entitled to be granted succession
certificate are not correct and in this connection, placed reliance on the
evidence produced, which shows that there had been a lawful marriage
between the petitioner and the deceased P.Ponnudurai.
19.The learned Counsel further pointed out that subsequent
marriage of the petitioner would not be a bar for her to be granted
10/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
succession certificate, since on the date of death of P.Ponnudurai, as
widow, she was Class-I legal heir. There was no legal bar for her to get
remarried again. The learned Counsel insisted that the contention of the
respondents should not be taken into consideration by this Court and by
very fact, the petitioner had been established her marriage with
P.Ponnudurai, had insisted an order being passed that the petitioner is
entitled to be granted succession certificate along with the second
respondent/mother of P.Ponnudurai.
20.Mr.R.Balasubramanian, learned Counsel for the respondents
however disputed the contentions raised. It is the stand of the learned
Counsel for the respondents that there was no legal marriage at all
between the petitioner and P.Ponnudurai, son of the respondents. It had
also been stated that the respondents had strived a lot to educate their
son, P.Ponnudurai and stated that the marriage between the petitioner and
the son of the respondents had not been even intimated to the
respondents. They were not aware at all such marriage.
11/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21.The learned Counsel stated that the petitioner had the habit of
marrying men and deserting them and re-marrying again, and on the
strength of the earlier marriage, attempting to grab the properties. In this
connection, the learned Counsel pointed out that the respondents were
informed in the middle of the night on 21.06.2017 that their son had died
and when they rushed to Chennai and saw the body in a stretcher at
Kilpauk Medical College, they were informed that their son had
committed suicided by hanging. The learned Counsel stated that the
respondents were threatened by the Sub Inspector of Police of J.J.Nagar
Police Station. Mover over, the father of the petitioner was working at
Secretariat in Chennai and used his influence to ensure that no criminal
case is proceeded in accordance with law as against the petitioner herein.
22.The learned Counsel stated that the respondents had buried
their son in accordance with their customs, but the petitioner never came
to participate in the ceremony to remove the sacred thali. Her parents
also did not attend. The learned Counsel was emphatic in his submission
that the petitioner had committed fraud on their son. He also stated that
12/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
money had been transferred from the account of their son to the
petitioner's account. The respondents had obtained loan to educate their
son and the amount had been drawn by the petitioner herein. A
complaint had been lodged against the petitioner and her father, but the
Police did not take any action. It had also been stated that the Tahsildar
issued a legal heirship certificate, even without enquiring the
respondents. It was also pointed out that marriage certificate was issued
with a false residential address and this was done only to grab the
benefits, which had accrued to the son of the respondents.
23.The respondents had also filed W.P.No.35527 of 2019 to revoke
the legal heirship certificate. The legal heirship certificate had been
issued on 10.05.2018 by the Tahsildar. The learned Counsel pointed out
the pitiable status of the respondents herein, who lost their son. It was
also stated that during the pendency of the present Original Petition, the
petitioner had married another person, S.Pradeep, but had suppressed that
particular fact before the Court. The learned Counsel stated that the
petitioner had no right to claim status as legal heir of the son of the
13/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents.
24.The learned Counsel stated that the chastity has to be kept by
any widow and the very fact that the petitioner had remarried would
show that she was not interested in the welfare or family of the
respondents herein. The learned Counsel therefore stated that the
petition should be dismissed. It was also pointed out that the second
husband of the petitioner had also filed a petition for divorce on the
ground of cruelty and life threat. The learned Counsel also placed
reliance on Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
stated that if a wife was living in adultery, she is not entitled for
maintenance. The learned Counsel therefore stated that the respondents
should be recognised to obtain the benefits from the employer of their
son, namely, City Corp at Ramanujam IT Park, Taramani. The learned
Counsel insisted that this petition should be dismissed.
25.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and
perused the material records.
14/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Issue No.1
26.The petitioner had filed the present Original Petition under
Section 372 Indian Succession Act, r/w relevant provisions of the
Original Side Rules of the Madras High Court seeking succession
certificate relating to the benefits payable to P.Ponnudurai, who was
working as Assistant Manager at Ramanujam IT City, TRIL Infopark
Limited-SEZ, Taramani, Chennai.
27.The petitioner had sought the benefits on the strength of her
assertion that she and P.Ponnudurai, had got married on 20.01.2016 in
accordance with Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She also claimed that
subsequently, the marriage had been registered with the Registrar of
Marriage at Sub Registrar Office, Sembiam. The petitioner had
examined herself as PW-1 and had filed proof of affidavit. A copy of the
marriage invitation card, dated 20.01.2016 had been filed as Ex-P1 and a
copy of the marriage extract of the Hindu Marriage Register kept by the
Marriage Registrar Officer, Sembiam, on 10.03.2016 had been filed as
15/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex-P2. The petitioner had also filed O.S.No.205 of 2018 before the
Junior Civil Judge Court, at Sathyavedu, Andhra Pradesh, seeking
partition and separate possession of the share of P.Ponnudurai in his
ancestral properties. P.Ponndurai, died on 21.06.2017 by committing
suicide. The computer generated death certificate was marked as Ex-P3.
The petitioner had marked the legal heirship certificate as Ex-P4. This
was issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar. In the said legal heirship
certificate, the names of the petitioner and the second respondent had
been given. Claiming that as Class-I legal heir, in view of her status as
widow of P.Ponnudurai, the present petition had been filed by also
impleading the parents of P.Ponnudurai, as respondents, and seeking
succession certificate for the benefits payable to P.Ponnudurai by his
employer.
28.This petition had been resisted by the respondents/parents of
P.Ponnudurai, who questioned the very marriage between the petitioner
and P.Ponnudurai. They also stated that the petitioner was in the habit of
marrying men, gaining advantage and deserting them. They even went to
16/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
an extent by stating that the petitioner was a direct cause for their son to
commit suicide.
29.The primary issue, which will have to be examined, is whether
the petitioner had established the fact of marriage between herself and
P.Ponnudurai. Ex.P1 is the copy of the marriage invitation and which has
the names of the parents of the petitioner and also the respondents herein.
The marriage had been celebrated in Siva Vishnu Temple. Perambur,
Chennai and later, a reception was also stated to be held at Sri
Venkateswara Thirumana Mahal, Veppampattu, outskirts of Chennai.
Even if this document could be doubted, as it is only an invitation, Ex-
P2, further substantiate that very fact. It is an extract of the Hindu
Marriage Register kept by the Marriage Register Office at Sembiam. It
must be mentioned that P.Ponnudurai was 28 years old at the time of
marriage and he had been born on 14.07.1987. His address had been
given. The names of his parents had been given. Their address had been
given. The name of the petitioner had been given. She was aged 27
years. She was born on 19.03.1988. Her address had been given. The
17/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
names of her parents and their address had been given. The place of
marriage, namely, Siva Vishnu Temple had been given. The marriage date
20.01.2016 had also been given. Both the petitioner and P.Ponnudurai
had signed the documents. The witnesses had also been stated. It is a
extract of official record.
30.Section 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stipulates that
presumption can be drawn that an official act would have been done in
its normal and proper manner.
31.The respondents however claimed that the marriage itself was a
sham affair. But it is to be noted that P.Ponnudurai, died on 21.06.2017,
nearly 1½ years after the date of marriage. In that period of 1 ½ years, he
had not protested about the marriage being sham or null and void for any
reason. The respondents contended that the petitioner was a direct cause
for the death of P.Ponnudurai, but this is not the forum, which can
examine that particular fact.
18/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
32.During the cross examination of RW-1, the first respondent,
photographs of marriage between the petitioner and P.Ponnudurai, had
been marked as Ex-P13, PW-14, Ex-P15, Ex-P16 and Ex-P17 and also
the photographs of Sri Ragavendhrar Thiruman Mahal, with outer
panthal, which gives the names of the petitioner and P.Ponnudurai. The
marriage photos were further marked as Ex-P18, Ex-P19, Ex-P20 and
Ex-P21. These documents were marked during the cross examination of
RW-2. The respondents however rely on Ex-P18, which is a letter
addressed by the first respondent to the President/Secretary, Siva Vishnu
Temple, but it is seen that the certificate had also been issued by the
Temple that the marriage had actually taken place and another certificate
was also enclosed, which has included the photos of both the petitioner
and P.Ponnudurai.
33.These documents very clearly established that the petitioner
herein had married P.Ponnudurai. The petitioner had established this fact
to the satisfaction of this Court and since that fact is established, it has to
19/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be held that on the date of death of P.Ponndurai, the petitioner, as his
wife, was entitled to be recognised as Class-I legal heir. Naturally, this
would also entitle her to a share in the benefits payable to P.Ponnudurai.
She would have to share that benefit with the second respondent/mother
of P.Ponnudurai.
34.In view of the above reasoning, I would hold with respect to
issue No.1, that the petitioner had produced sufficient evidence to prove
that she had married P.Ponnudurai and with respect to issue No.2 that the
contention of the respondents that there was no lawful marriage will have
to be rejected.
Issue Nos.3 and 4:-
35.The main contention of the respondents is that the petitioner
stood disentitled to seek the benefits payable to P.Ponnudurai, because
she had remarried again. This fact cannot be denied by the petitioner.
Documents in this regard had been produced. They had been marked
20/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
during cross examination of PW-1, the petitioner herein. Ex-R1 was the
marriage invitation by the petitioner with S.Pradeep and the date of the
marriage was 02.12.2019. Ex-R2 is the payment made for that marriage
to Saritha Mahal. The date of receipt was 03.11.2019. Ex-R4, R5 and
R6 are photographs and CDs relating to the marriage ceremony. Ex-R10,
is the loan obtained by P.Ponnudurai from City Bank and HDFC Bank
and Ex-R11 is the transfer of the amount to the petitioner. Ex-R12 is the
amount transfer from P.Ponnudurai's accounts after his death.
36.These documents, particularly, the marriage invitation and the
photographs establish that the petitioner had remarried nearly 2½ years
after the death of P.Ponnudurai. There is no law which prohibits a widow
from remarrying. It was not done in secrecy, as it is evident from the
photographs. The only issue, which is raised, is that owing to such
remarriage, the petitioner stands disqualified from receiving the benefit
payable to P.Ponnudurai.
37.The learned Counsel for respondents had placed reliance on a
21/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2020) 2 SCC
139, in the case of Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (Dead) by Lrs vs
Kothuri Venkateswaralu (Dead) by LRs and others, wherein, the
Honourable Supreme Court had placed reference on a judgment of the
Madras High Court reported in AIR 1951 Mad 95 [Ramaiya Konar vs
Mottayya Mudaliar] and observed that it is a well settled rule of Hindu
Law that unchastity disqualifies a widow from succession to her
husband's estate. However, it must be kept in mind that this judgment
examined the provisions of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956
and whether it was prospective or retrospective in nature and
observations were made based on the Widows Remarriage Act, 1856,
which had been repealed by Act 24 of 1983 and the Madras Hindu
(Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1959. These statutes no longer
prevail. Reliance placed on which this judgment is misconceived.
38.The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of
Bombay High Court, reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 315, [Rama Appea
Patil and others vs Sakhu Dattu Gharal] wherein, on examination of the
22/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
provisions of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856, it was held that
by remarriage a Hindu widow would stand to forfeiture of the estate
inherited by her from her husband or as a widow in the family of her
husband. It must be stated that again this enactment no longer survives
and has been subsequently repealed and is not applicable to the facts of
this case.
39.In 1976 (4) SCC 674, [Kasturi Devi vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation and others], the Honourable Supreme Court very
categorically held that under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1856, a Class-I heir, namely, a mother cannot be divested of her interest
in her son's property either on the ground of inchastity or remarriage.
40.In 2021 SCC Online Bombay 13718, [Jaiwantabai vs
Sunanda and another) the substantial question in the Section Appeal
was whether a widow can claim the estate of the husband after
remarriage. The Bombay High Court had held that if the widow had not
remarried, when the succession opens, the disqualification under Section
23/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24 of the Act, 1956 will not be applicable. Additionally, in this case, it
must be stated that Section 24 of Act 1956, had been omitted with effect
from 09.09.2005 and therefore, the petitioner herein cannot be
categorised as being disqualified.
41.In 2020 (3) MWN (Civil) 820, [Yamuna Dhevi vs D.Nalini], a
learned Single Judge of this Court had very specifically held that under
Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a subsequent remarriage
will not disqualify the widow from succeeding to the estate of her
deceased husband. It had been held in paragraph 25, as follows:
“25. If it is once held that the respondent is the wife of the
late Paranthaman and her subsequent remarriage will not disqualify
her from succeeding to the estate of her late husband, then she is
entitled to succeed to half the share of the deceased Paranthaman.
It is not necessary to drive parties to some other forum because the
necessary parties are before this Court in both the Original
Petitions. As held by the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhari and others
v. Sukhrana Bai and Others ((2008) 2 SCC 238), this Court can itself
declare the rights of the parties with the proportionate share to
each of them so as to succeed to the estate of Late Paranthaman.
42.With respect to a claim petition for getting compensation owing
to motor accident, when the issue that the widow had remarried and
24/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therefore, was disentitled for any share in the compensation, came up for
consideration before a learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in
First Appeal No.111 of 2019, [The Iffco Tokio General Insurance
Company Limited vs Bhagyashri Ganesh Gaikward and others], the
learned Single Judge of Bombay High court held as follows:
“10. In respect of, issue of remarriage of Claimant No.1, in
my view, it appears from record that at the time of death of her
husband, she was 19 years old. Thereafter, she filed a Claim
Petition for getting compensation, during pendency of the Claim
petition she re-married. One cannot expect that for getting
compensation of deceased husband, the widow has to remain widow
for life time or till getting compensation. Considering her age, and
at the time of accident, she was wife of deceased, is sufficient
ground that she is entitled for the compensation. Moreover after
death of husband remarriage can not be a taboo to get a
compensation.”
43.The learned Counsel for the respondents had relied on a
judgment of Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2011) 12 SCC 588
[Inderjit Singh Grewal and Sate of Punjab and another) on the issue of
fraud and placed specific reliance on paragraph 17, which is as follows:
“17.It is a settled legal proposition that where a person gets
an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon
the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eye
of the law as fraud unravels everything. “Equity is always known to
defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to
evade law.” It is trite that “fraud and justice never dwell together”
25/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). Fraud is an act of deliberate
deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not
due. Fraud and deception are synonymous. “Fraud is anathema to
all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be
perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine.”
An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously.
(Vide Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy [(2010) 8 SCC 383 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 878 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 368] , SCC pp. 395-96, para 34.)”
44.In the instant case, the fact that the petitioner had married the
son of the respondents had been established. She is therefore a Class-I
heir on the death of of her husband. The marriage had been established
by documentary and oral evidence. The fact that she had remarried
cannot and should not disqualify her from inheriting the estate of her late
husband. The judgments are clear on this aspect. There has been no
fraud played.
45.In view of these facts, I would hold with respect to issue No.3,
that the contention of the respondents that the remarriage would
disentitle the petitioner for grant the relief has to be rejected and with
respect to issue No.4, that the petitioner is entitled for succession
certificate as sought by her in the petition.
26/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Issue No.5:-
46.The second respondent is the mother of the deceased
P.Ponnudurai. She is a Class-I legal heir. She is therefore, entitled for
succession certificate. No discussion is required on this aspect. The issue
is answered accordingly.
Issue No.6:-
47.In the result, it is held that the petitioner and the second
respondent are both jointly entitled to an equal share in the benefits of
P.Ponnudruai. A succession certificate may therefore be issued to the
petitioner to receive one half of the benefits payable to P.Ponnudurai and
it is held that the second respondent is entitled for the other one half.
48.In the result,
(1) the Original Petition is allowed. It is held that the petitioner
and the second respondent are both equally entitled for the benefits of
P.Ponnudurai, who died intestate on 21.06.2017, particularly, his benefits
27/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from his employer, Ramanujam IT City, TRIL Infopark Limited-SEZ,
Taramani, Chennai.
(2) The petitioner is to be issued succession certificate accordingly.
(3)No order as to costs.
Index :Yes / No 27.04.2023
Internet :Yes
NCC : Yes/No
cmr
28/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
List of witness on the side of the Petitioner::-
PW-1 – S.Saranya (petitioner)
List of witness on the side of the Respondent:-
RW-1- B.Ponnusamy (first respondent)
RW-2- G.Perumal
List of exhibits marked on the side of the petitioner:-
Ex-P1 Copy of the marriage invitation, dated 20.01.2016,
Ex-P2 Copy of the marriage registration certificate, dated
10.03.2016
Ex-P3 The computer generated death certificate of P.Ponnusamy,
dated 30.04.2018
Ex-P4 Legal heir certificate of Ponnudurai, dated 10.05.2018
Ex-P5 Copy of the Aadhar Card of P.Ponnudurai,
Ex-P6 Original legal notice sent by the petitioner
Ex-P7 Original Reply notice sent by Citicorp Services India Private
Limited, dated 28.03.2019
Ex-P8 Original rejoinder sent by the petitioner
Ex-P9 Original Reply notice sent by Citicorp Services India Private
Limited, dated 24.04.2019
Ex-P10 Letter issued by the Citicorp Services India Private Limited
Ex-P11 Paper publication, dated 04.01.2020 in Thina Boomi,
Ex-P12 Photograph and CD of the marriage between the petitioner
and the deceased P.Ponnudurai
29/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex-P13 Photographs of the marriage between the petitioner and the
deceased P.Ponnudurai
Ex-P14 Photographs of the marriage between the petitioner and the
deceased P.Ponnudurai
Ex-P15 Photographs of the marriage between the petitioner and the
deceased P.Ponnudurai
Ex-P16 Photographs of the marriage between the petitioner and the
deceased P.Ponnudurai
Ex-P17 Photographs of the marriage between the petitioner and the
deceased P.Ponnudurai
Ex-P18 Photographs of the marriage between the petitioner and the
deceased P.Ponnudurai
Ex-P19 Photographs of the marriage between the petitioner and the
deceased P.Ponnudurai
Ex-P20 Photographs and CD of the marriage between the petitioner
and the deceased P.Ponnudurai
Ex-21 Photographs of the marriage ceremony
List of exhibits marked on the side of the respondents:-
Ex-R1 Marriage invitation of the petitioner with another individual,
S.Pradeep.
Ex-R2 Copy of advance receipt paid to Kalyana Mandapam.
Ex-R3 Copy of bill
30/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex-R4 Photograph and CD of marriage ceremony between the
petitioner and S.Pradeep
Ex-R5 Photograph of marriage ceremony between the petitioner
and S.Pradeep
Ex-R6 Photograph of marriage ceremony between the petitioner
and S.Pradeep
Ex-R7 The copy of FIR.
Ex-R8 The details of call logs
Ex-R9 The details of call logs
Ex-R10 The statement of accounts of City Bank
Ex-R11 The statement of accounts of City Union Bank
Ex-R12 The statement of accounts of City Bank
Ex-R13 The affidavit filed in W.P.No.35527 of 2019
Ex-R14 The is an affidavit file in W.P.No.6743 of 2020
Ex-R15 Copy of the plaint in the suit filed by the petitioner before
the District Munsif Court, Sathyavedu.
Ex-R16 Affidavit of the first respondent in the said suit.
Ex-R17 The family member certificate issued by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh
Ex-R18 The application filed by the first respondent to the temple.
31/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
cmr Pre Deliver order made in O.P.No.598 of 2019 27.04.2023 32/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis