Mallakam District Court
09 September 2018
Administration of the Intestate Estate of
Mr. Subramaniam Yoganathan of Vaddukoddai
Civil Appellate High Court Case – APPEAL/74/2016; LA 33/2015
D.C.Mallakam Case No. T/55/2011
I refer to my visit to your office on Friday, 07 September 2018, in relation to the above matter. The fact that you were discussing that very matter with your staff – in relation to an additional account about which Mr. Yogendra, had successfully moved a motion meant that I was meant to attend and discuss matters with you. The Natural forces worked that way. To my mind, that is the way of Natural Justice. I myself did not plan but was directed by my inner voice to see you in person rather than talk to you over the phone. I confirm that I bow to that inner voice.
I confirm that I raised the issue of ‘Deductions’ and stated that since the Petitioners applied for NO Administration but only Certificates of Heirship, no deductions could be made from the Amounts that according to you are being collected by the Courts. I raised also the issue that the Court did not have the authority of law to ‘Administer’ due to its own ruling in the Civil Appellate High Court of Jaffna - that NO Administration was needed.
Sir, you mentioned that you were using the Mallakam Court Order to collect the monies – as per the motions moved successfully by Mr. Yogendra. You said that we – the Objecting Respondents had ‘lost’ at both levels. The judges may have ruled to dismiss our objections. But in the process they Delivered order, followed by judgment to a different application to the one made originally by the Petitioners. That sir, is confirmation that our Appeal was successfully executed If we had lost the Appeal – there ought to have been NO change to the original petition and the agreement by the Petitioners and other respondents that the wealth of the Deceased in the UK would be Administered as per UK law. There was no such commitment at the Mallakam District Court.
As urged by me on Friday, I ask that you go through the Petition carefully to confirm the ‘fact’ that the Petitioners sought NO Administration but only Certificates of Heirship. We objected and claimed that Administration was needed and we claimed that we would Administer. As you rightly kept highlighting we were apparently ‘dismissed’ by both courts. But in substance we confirmed the need for Administration for about 95% of the intestate estate. I confirm my belief that without our objection – the Court would have paid monies claimed as deductions – shown as due to themselves and their silent partners. Please note that the Petitioners did not state that we – the 5th and 6th Respondents should not be granted probate/administrative authority. They categorically claimed that the law did NOT require Administration because the assets in Sri Lanka were less than Rs 4,000,000. They were using your dependence on them to pretend that the Court did not need the Authority of the Law to Administer the Estate. Effectively, you have taken our entitlement by demoting us and then taking over our position without the authority of the law.
The ‘dismissals’ by the courts did not mean that the Registrar of Court had the authority to ‘Administer’. During my visit in May this year, when I asked the Registrar of the Civil Appellate High Court – Jaffna about getting that Certificate of Heirship – that Registrar said that our lawyer needed to file a motion for it. When I asked Mr Manivannan who represented us to do so he said that Mr. Yogendra needed to file the judgment in Mallakam District Court and stated further that Mr Kanagasinghm who represented us in Mallakam District Court had to move the relevant motion in Mallakam District Court. I gave up and then my husband wrote to Mr Yogendra who spoke to my husband but did not say a word about the motions he had been putting through at Mallakam District Court. But the Lord of Justice whom I bow to each time I am in open Court – revealed to me what has been going on without any word to us from the Mallakam District Court. As active participants we were entitled to be updated by the Court about such moves. That to me is basic in balanced Administration.
During our discussion you stated that I was suspicious of you. Reverse the roles and ask yourself how you would have felt under the circumstances? Your expression confirmed that if I had done to you what you were doing – to us you would have been suspicious of me. That is the way of Truth. Since you did not know me – your conclusion was about yourself. Hence the Tamil saying ‘Than Vinai Thannai Chuddum. Ottappam Veettai Chudum’ (One’s own negative actions /words would return to sender; The hopper in the roof [placed by the holy person ]will ignite the whole house). The hopper placed by me is the decision by the Mallakam District Court after ridiculing and insulting me in open court. If my marriage was wrong for that family that decision – even with all its technical faults would not have harmed the Court house. But I am blessed with Kannaki power and I am returning the karma of the Courts to them.
No I was NOT suspicious of you. I am disappointed with you for failing to do your duty as a legal Administrator. Your duty is determined by the Law. If you are to merely carry out orders of the Judge – then there is no need for a person with knowledge of law in that position. An ordinary clerk obedient to the seniors would do the job better – without any conflict between the roles.
Sir, you would be aware of the importance of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers between the Executive Government and the Judiciary, in a Democratic system. One of the main criticisms directed at the previous Government of Sri Lanka was their actions in breaching this doctrine in the case of former Chief Justice, Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. It is my understanding that Court Administration is part of the Executive Government’s responsibility in a Democratic structure. It is my conclusion that by executing one or more Court Orders without independent application of the law, on behalf of the Government you also have acted in breach of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers between the Executive and the Judiciary within the Mallakam District Court. Mr Yogendra has influenced such breach and Mr Manivannan has failed in his duty to complete his duty for the fees he received from us which is higher than the fee we paid Mr Harsha Fernando who represented us recently in our Colombo land matter. In the case of Mr Manivannan, my conclusion is that his Political investment comes before his commitment to legal profession. Hence his return karma where his claim to political leadership in Jaffna – which is my home area through belief based investment – is now being challenged in Colombo Courts. That is how I read the way of Natural Justice to which all believers in the system contribute naturally. We disagree / object because we believe. Those who agree / consent largely for money outcomes are not believers.
On Friday, you and your staff urged me to bring my lawyer to discuss the matter. That was inappropriate and misleads the Public who have the right to discuss Legal Administration with the Registrar, without interference of legal professionals. Practice of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers would help Administrators become independent of the Judiciary.
You confirmed serious dependence on the Judiciary when you stated that I needed to submit copy of my letter to Mr Yogendra, through a motion. To my mind, it looks as if you made up your mind about the ‘outcomes’ that would please your seniors and then used the authority of your position to ‘rule’. To my mind, your duty is to first construct your pathway as per the law – and deliver service as per that structure. We the litigants are on the other hand entitled to present our Truth – as per our own conscience and where possible within the form outlined by the relevant laws – in this instance the Civil Procedure Code for Administration and Thesawalamai for Succession . If you foreshadow outcomes prematurely – you fail to include our Truth and the Courthouse fails to serve the Public but the staff and the judiciary. Our Truth may or may not be given form by laws – especially laws that are no longer relevant. But Truth will eventually succeed over disorder – which disorder is intrinsic part of the minds of those who oppose Truth., including by using irrelevant laws. This case has confirmed to me that one would be unwise to use the Judicial path in its current structure, towards self-governance in Northern Sri Lanka. THAT to my mind confirms the weak contribution by the current Chief Minister of Northern Province, who also has indiscriminately mixed Judiciary status with Political powers. To my mind, it is highly likely that you would hear the voice of Mr Wigneswaran – who continues to use his past Judicial status actively to elevate his status. Like Mr Manivannan, you are also Mr Wigneswaran’s heir in breaching the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.
As stated to you on Friday, the Respondent who claimed Rs 450,000 through the Petitioners who applied for and were finally granted NO ADMINISTRAION for the Sri Lankan wealth of the Deceased, is no more. What you did not hear from me was the fact that this person’s wife who claimed in Court that she was NOT given dowry and through whose influence Mr Yogendra repeatedly stated in Court that I was NOT family because of my second marriage – lost her Thali chain when participating in the Ther festival at Sydney Murugan Temple . My husband shared with me that he cried because of his father’s pain in not being able to find suitable husband for this lady. The dowry confirmed the sacrifices that the father and the brothers made to have the sisters married. If a person believes that the sisters’ marriages were arranged by elders – the father followed by brothers – that person is NOT part of Thesawamalai system. Dowry is a right of the daughter as Muthusum is the right of the son as per Thesawalamai. Both courts disrespected this Tradition, by requiring ‘documentary proof’ as if they were Non-Believers. One who asks for objective evidence is an outsider.
In the above incident - another lady also was reported to have lost her Thali Chain but when one chain was found Mrs Sabanathan’s daughter is reported to have argued that it was her mother’s. To me that loss was no coincidence. It was a lesson from Lord Muruga who confirms the absolute value of second union – through Valli. Mrs Sabanathan’s demotion of my marriage so she would get the money – by effectively painting me to be the greedy woman – returned to her – to reduce her own marriage status – that it was based on trade off and not the rights as daughter. Had the courts included my husband’s affidavit – the Truth that Mrs Sabanathan came to Australia because of my appeal after they were rejected by the Australian authorities – would have been included and there would have been good, reliable order in the outcome delivered by the Courts. Every good marriage negates the risk of rape in the area where such marriage is honoured. Where dowry is honoured as part of our Traditional law – that place is purified of lower level enjoyment of pleasures – within and/or outside marriage. The Courts have contributed to such risks by aiding in the demotion of such a marriage and insulting such a marriage.
A read of my husband’s affidavit which was set aside unjustly by the Mallakam Court judge – would confirm the depth at which I was family. Recently, the grandson of the eldest brother of the deceased, who is now specializing in paediatrics came over to our home with his fiancé who is also a paediatrician – to be blessed by my husband and I. THAT is the real verdict – including as to who is family and who is NOT.
I confirm that I said to you that at this rate we also may be dead and gone by the time your processes get completed. To us, every step by us was/is Pithur Kadan. The deceased also ‘lost’ in court regarding his work related case against the Cement Corporation. Hence our ‘fail’ grade by that system that failed him – only gives further clarity to understanding why he lost. We become his true heirs through such loss and resulting pain. The courts that failed him in living has failed him in death also. It is for these reasons that I said to you that if you did not operate within the boundaries of law – the resulting sin would be shared by you also. Only your duty can protect you from such personal karma.
Yesterday, when praying to Lord Nallur Murugan at the beginning of His Chariot Journey – I prayed for release from any Sooran in me so I would enjoy like Divine Thevar s /gods. Then I moved towards the other side of the Ther’s Home where there is a tree representing Saint Yoga Swami. That’s when the disorder became clear in my mind – confirming the Divine purpose of my visit to your office. As the records would confirm I filed for and won ‘Leave to Appeal’ order, on the basis that the order delivered by the Mallakam District Court was ‘Interlocutory’. When preparing the leave to appeal papers within the very short time we had due our lawyer not getting it over to us on time – I came across Chettiyar vs Chettiyar in relation to deciding whether a decision was interlocutory or final. In Australia where I was self-represented – the judges did the needful – so we could proceed with the appeals. My contribution to the Judicial system through my Truth is in ‘Naan Australian’ book which is now in the National Library of Australia – without any effort on my part for it to get there. A copy is now in the library of the University of Jaffna also due to my conscious effort. The book is about how I found closure through my identify with Truth despite the ‘fail’ grade by the Judiciary. The Mallakam Court experience is included in the last part. During the preparation of the said Appeal – a strand from the peacock feather flew from our shrine area and sat on my papers. To me that was blessing from Lord Muruga. As you may know that case was about “Sri Kathirvelayuthan Swami Kovil” (Murugan Temple in Colombo). I took it as blessings from Above and this sustained me whenever the thought that the Judiciary may not hear me crept into my mind. As you know – Judge Manickavasagar Elancheleyan granted on 28 September 2016, leave to Appeal.
I was reminded of this by Yoga Swami when I was waiting yesterday for Lord Muruga’s Ther/Chariot to complete the journey. The above grant of leave to Appeal confirmed that the decision of the Mallakam District Court was interlocutory order and not final judgment. The final judgment was delivered by the Civil Appellate High Court of Jaffna. . This included the ruling that there was to be NO Administration for the wealth in Sri Lanka and that application for Administration of the wealth in UK would be undertaken by the Petitioners and the other two siblings who were represented by Mr Yogendra. The records would show that the other two siblings never gave consent at Mallakam District Court despite the requirements of Section 524(4) (f) which states :
‘The Petitioner shall tender with his petition, the consent in writing of such respondents as consent to his application’.
It was during Appeal stage that they joined the Petitioners. This ‘insertion’ at appeal stage, confirms to my mind, disorderly Administration. Due Processes are the pathways through which we pay our respects to all those who contributed to the development and maintenance of those pathways. It is our Pithur-Kadan to those ancestors. Failing to pay those dues – results in disorder.
The final judgment was delivered by the Civil Appellate High Court of Jaffna. According to this there have been additions regarding Separation of wealth for purposes of Administration. This negates any Administration by any heir or the Court of the whole of the wealth in Sri Lanka.
If Administration was found to be needed – and there is no fit person in the opinion of the Court – the Court is empowered to appoint a Public Trustee. As per my conclusion you are now playing that role but without following Due Process as per the Law – specifically Section 520 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 520A requires you to list any known Liabilities. Section 522 (b) states that such a Public Trustee is liable to the same liability and dues as other probate officers / Administrators even though they are not required to furnish any bond or security. Unless therefore you were granted approval through Due Process of Law to be the Administrator – you have acted outside your lawful position in collecting the monies and making decisions on behalf of the heirs as per the orders issued by the Judge in response to Mr Yogendra’s unlawful motions . You expressed the intention to settle the stated creditors if the persons concerned applied for it. As stated – ours has been submitted on the same footing as the other respondents – but against the wealth in the UK . This may lead to that part of the estate becoming ‘insolvent’. The courts treated us – shareholders – as outsiders and therefore creditors who rank for settlement before heirs. THAT is the way of Truth.
As indicated on Friday, we propose to take legal action once we have evidence of breach of law by any party concerned including any officer of the Courts. Thus the failures unjustly allocated to our Brother Mr Subramaniam Yoganathan by the Courts is inherited now by those who used that Judicial pathway for lesser purposes. Heirs get the liabilities with the assets.
CC: Hon Justice W.P.G. Dep – Chairman
Judicial Services Commission,
P.O. Box 573, Hulftsdorp – Sri Lanka
The Secretary, Judicial Service Commission Secretariat; P.O.Box 573, Hulftsdrop,
Colombo 12.Sri Lanka;
Mr Subramaniam Tharmalingam& Mrs AnandaletchumyTharmalingam , c/o Mr D Yogendra, Attorney at law
Mr Yohananda Sabanathan &Mrs Saraswathy Sabanathan; 37, Old Field Road; Seven Hills; NSW 2147; Australia
Mr Sellathurai Mahadevan & Mrs Sakthidevy Mahadevan; Kallady Lane; Vaddukoddai South West; Northern ProvinceSri Lanka
Mr. Visvalingam Manivannan – Attorney at Law, Jaffna
Mr SD S D Yogendra - Attorney at Law, Colombo
The Hon C V Wigneswaran – Chief Minister – Northern Province – Sri Lanka
The SecretaryBarAssociation of Sri Lanka No.153, MihinduMawatha,
Colombo 12, Sri Lanka
The Hon Justice Elancheleyan, C/o Judicial Services Commission Sri Lanka
Mr J Gajanithibalan – District Court – Mallakam - C/o Judicial Services Commission Sri Lanka