IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.08.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN W.P.No.37766 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 N.Elangathir ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Manager Indian Bank Maraimalai Nagar Branch, Maraimalai Nagar, Kancheepuram. 2. The Manager Indian Bank Neyveli Township Branch, Neyveli, Cuddalore District. 3. The Manager Indian Bank Chidambaram Bazar Branch Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 4. The Manager Central Co-operative Bank Chidambaram Bazar Branch Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 5. The Chidambaram Bazar Town Co-operative Urban Bank Chidambaram Town, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 6. The Manager State Bank of India Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 7. The Manager Vallalar Grama Bank, Sethiathope Branch, Sethiathope, Cuddalore District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The Post Master Head Postoffice, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 9. The Post Master Branch Post Office, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 10. The Manager Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., 123, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai – 1. 11. The Manager Jayapriya Company, No.30, Main Road, Neyveli – 607 802 Cuddalore District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 19.04.2007. For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Thirumavalavan For Respondents: Ms.Karthika Ashok for R1 and R2 Mr.R.Arumugam for R5 Mr.K.S.Ramakrishnan for R10 O R D E R This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 19.04.2007 and pass appropriate orders. 2. The petitioner herein has averred that his maternal uncle, Late Natarajan, who was employed in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation at Neyveli had deposited a huge amount with the respondents 1 to 11 and he has further stated that the said Natarajan died issueless and he executed a Will in favour of the petitioner herein. Based on the Will, the petitioner has claimed right for the amount deposited with the respondents 1 to 11. 3. The petitioner has also stated that the said Natarajan lived with his elder brother, one Gomathinayagam at Chennai and hence, Munusamy, his elder brother's son and his wife Anbarasi were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointed as nominees in their individual capacity or joint capacity for all the fixed deposits and the S.B.Account maintained by the deceased Natarajan. According to the petitioner, the deceased Natarajan had wife by name Rukmani Ammal, who died in the year 1997, due to diabetic problems in a Hospital. The petitioner is the son of his younger sister, Sakunthala, who died one year prior to the death of Natarajan. According to the petitioner, the said Natarajan had executed a Will on 17.04.2007 in favour of his younger sister, Sakunthala's son Elangathir, the petitioner herein. Based on the Will, the petitioner is claiming right as legal heir and seeking direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has to establish the Will, as per procedure known to law. The right claimed by the petitioner is a mixed question of law and fact. Hence, without adducing evidence, the genuineness of the Will cannot be decided, by any writ Court. Therefore, the petitioner could have approached only the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the genuineness of the Will. The petitioner cannot claim any right based on a Will, without establishing the genuineness and the legality of the Will in the manner known to law. 5. Directly filing this writ petition, seeking a direction against the respondents, based on a Will, which has not been established is not legally sustainable. It is also the duty of the petitioner to implead the rival claimants, namely the close relatives of the deceased, who are entitled to claim right to the property in the absence of the Will. 6. This Court in Prasad Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., reported in 2009 (4) CTC 259, has held that when there is disputed questions of fact involved, the writ petition cannot be entertained and accordingly, the petitioner therein was given opportunity to approach the Civil Court, while dismissing the writ petition. 7. In the Governing Council of American College vs. The Director of Collegiate Education, reported in 2000 (9) CTC 401, a Division Bench of this Court held that the question as to who are actually the members of the Governing Council on the relevant dates was a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by a writ Court. 8. Following the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. Sumathi and others reported in 2000 (4) SCC 543, in Lilly Pushpam, S vs. Union of India, reported in 2003 (4) CTC 168, this Court held that where there are disputed questions of fact and an unequivocal denial of tortuous liability, seeking remedy under Article 226 may not be proper. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Relying on the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Durai Arivudainambi vs. Election Commissioner of India, reported in 2001 (3) CTC 361, this Court has held that adjudication of disputes regarding caste, being mixed question of law and fact which cannot be decided under Article 226, as evidence has to be let in and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. 10. It is a well settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court by various decisions that disputed questions of law cannot be decided by a writ court, as the same could not be decided without appreciation of evidence. In the instant case, the petitioner herein has claimed right, based on an alleged Will and the Will was not probated or established in the manner known to law and therefore, without establishing the genuineness and the validity of the Will, the petitioner herein cannot seek any relief, based on the Will. The genuineness and the validity of the Will could only be decided by adducing evidence, after impleading all necessary parties, who are entitled to claim right to the property in the absence of the Will. Since the relief sought for in the writ petition relates to questions of fact, the relief sought for in the writ petition is not sustainable in law, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to establish his right by proving the Will, according to law. No order as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar tsvn TO 1. The Manager Indian Bank Maraimalai Nagar Branch, Maraimalai Nagar, Kancheepuram. 2. The Manager Indian Bank Neyveli Township Branch, Neyveli, Cuddalore District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Manager Indian Bank Chidambaram Bazar Branch Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 4. The Manager Central Co-operative Bank Chidambaram Bazar Branch Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 5. The Chidambaram Bazar Town Co-operative Urban Bank Chidambaram Town, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 6. The Manager State Bank of India Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 7. The Manager Vallalar Grama Bank, Sethiathope Branch, Sethiathope, Cuddalore District. 8. The Post Master Head Postoffice, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 9. The Post Master Branch Post Office, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. + 1 cc to Mr. K.S. Ramakrishnan, Advocate Sr.61352 + 1 cc to Mr.r. Arumugam, ADvocate Sr.61128 + 1 cc to Mrs. A. Karthika Ashok, ADvocate Sr.61244 W.P.No.37766 of 2007 RJ(CO) EU 29.09.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/