High Court dismisses appeal preferred against legal heirship certificate issued to M.A.M.R. Muthiah

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ appeal preferred by M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust challenging a single judge’s refusal to quash a legal heirship certificate issued by a tahsildar to M.A.M.R. Muthiah in his capacity as the adopted son of Ramaswamy Chettiar.

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ appeal preferred by M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust challenging a single judge’s refusal to quash a legal heirship certificate issued by a tahsildar to M.A.M.R. Muthiah in his capacity as the adopted son of Ramaswamy Chettiar.

First Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice T. Raja and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy confirmed the judgement passed by Justice N. Sathish Kumar on October 13, 2022 and held that the trust, being a stranger to the family, could not now question the adoption that had taken place way back in 1996.

The Bench said, it was in complete agreement with the submission of Senior Counsel M.S. Krishnan and the proposition laid down by the Karnataka High Court in a different case that no one else but for the biological parents, adoptive parents or the adopted children could question the validity of the adoption.

The trust had contended before the Bench that M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar belonged to Pattinasamy Pirivu of Ilayatrangudi Temple whereas Mr. Muthiah belonged to Kazhanivasal Pirivu. It claimed that there were objections from both the sects of the temple to the adoption right from 1996.

Pattinasamy Pirivu had also passed a resolution on December 18, 2014 to the effect that the adoption was contrary to the custom of the Nattukottai Nagarathar Community and Ramaswamy Chettiar died on December 2, 2015 bequeathing all his properties to the charitable trust named after him.

His last rites were performed by his brother’s son M.A.M.M. Annamalai. However, in order to stake claim to valuable properties, Mr. Muthiah applied for legal heirship certificate in December 2015 and obtained it from Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk Tahsildar in March 2016 despite severe objections raised by the trust.

Not finding any reason to quash the certificate, the Division Bench said, A.C. Muthiah, the managing trustee of the appellant trust, was present at the adoption ceremony held on February 9, 1996 and yet he did not challenge the adoption within the limitation period of three years.