AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramanujam, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sathiadev, J. in W.P. 1319 of 1984, dismissing the same with certain
observations. One Sundarammal was a licence-holder for salt-pan situated in Marakanom village, Tindivanam taluk, in R.S. Nos. 29 and 1141.
Before her, the licence stood in the name of her husband. Sundarammal died and before her death, she had executed a settlement deed in favour of
the second respondent herein. On the faith of that settlement deed, the second respondent appears to have applied for the transfer of the licence in
his favour and the first respondent has directed the transfer of the licence as prayed for. It appears that even before the transfer of the said licence,
the appellant herein, who is the brother''s son of the husband of Sundarammal, had sent a communication through his lawyer to the first respondent
bringing to his notice that the settlement deed had been revoked and that he being the heir of the husband of Sundarammal, is entitled to the
transfer of the licence in his favour. However, the first respondent notwithstanding the said notice proceeded to transfer the licence in favour of the
settlee, the second respondent. The petitioner however sent a letter, dated 24th March, 1983 seeking the transfer of the licence in his favour. That
letter was replied by the first respondent stating that as the second respondent has been granted the transfer of the licence on the basis of a
settlement deed executed by Sundarammal, the petitioner''s request cannot be acceded to. The petitioner thereafter filed the above writ petition
praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to conduct an inquiry in relation to the licence as to who are all the heirs of
Sundarammal. The case of the petitioner-appellant is that he being the heir of the husband of Sundarammal, is entitled to succeed to the licence.
The said writ petition was dismissed in limine by Sathiadev, J. on the ground that the transfer of a licence by the first respondent is always subject
to adjudication by a civil court as to who is entitled to succeed to Sundaramal''s estate and that as and when such an adjudication is given by the
civil court, the licence issued by the first respondent will be subject to such an adjudication. According to the learned single Judge, since the
question of heirship requires oral and documentary evidence and that question once and for all can be decided only by a civil court and not by the
first respondent it is for the petitioner-appellant herein to move the civil court to establish his rights. On the facts of this case, we are in entire
agreement with the learned single Judge. As between the appellant and the second respondent, who had made a claim for the transfer of the
licence in each of their favour, the first respondent has chosen to grant the licence in favour of the second respondent based on the settlement
admittedly executed by Sundarammal. The appellant herein relies on a deed of revocation said to have been executed by Sundarammal and
whether the settlement deed has been duly and truly revoked by the said Sundarammal is a matter which cannot be considered by the first
respondent and those are all matters which can be considered by the civil Court on the basis of the evidence, oral and documentary adduced
before it. In that light, the direction to the first respondent to conduct another inquiry as regards the heirship as between the appellant and the
second respondent is quite unnecessary, for, even if he holds one way or the other that will be subject to the ultimate decision by the civil Court.
Therefore, instead of directing the parties to further proceedings unnecessarily, the learned Judge had felt that the appellant should move the civil
Court where the question of heirship can be decided finally and after getting an adjudication from the civil court, the first respondent can be moved
for suitable relief.
The learned counsel for the appellant says that the licence granted in favour of the second respondent should be taken to be only temporary and
not a permanent one. As pointed out by the learned single Judge, the order passed by the first respondent granting a licence in favour of the second
respondent can only be taken to be temporary in the sense that it is subject to any adjudication by a civil court as to the heirship as between the
appellant and the second respondent to the estate of Sundarammal. With these observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. The appellant is at
liberty to approach the civil Court for appropriate relief.