" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Honan v. Greene, 37 Conn.App. 137, 145, 655 A.2d 274 (1995). "By the express terms of the statute, the [appellant] was given a right to apply for a conservator; in order for that right to be adequately protected, the [appellant] must be permitted to appeal the decision of the Probate Court . . . Thus, the [appellant], as a person entitled to file an application for the appointment of a conservator pursuant to § 45a-648, is statutorily aggrieved upon the denial of his application and entitled to appeal pursuant to § 45a-186."
" (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Honan v. Greene, 37 Conn. App. 137, 143, 655 A.2d 274 (1995). Under § 7-1, the board is required to warn a town meeting on the application of twenty inhabitants qualified to vote.
" (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Honan v. Greene, 37 Conn.App. 137, 145, 655 A.2d 274 (1995). "The general canons of statutory construction also mandate that § 45a-186 should be read to allow for a forty-five-day appeal period in conservatorship cases."
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Honan v. Greene, 37 Conn.App. 137, 145, 655 A.2d 274 (1995). "By the express terms of the statute, the plaintiff was given a right to apply for a conservator; in order for that right to be adequately protected, the plaintiff must be permitted to appeal the decision of the Probate Court . . . Thus, the plaintiff, as a person entitled to file an application for the appointment of a conservator pursuant to § 45a-648, is statutorily aggrieved upon the denial of his application and entitled to appeal pursuant to § 45a-186."
To secure a mandamus against a probate judge, that individual must be a party to a civil action in which mandamus is sought. See Kiszkiel v. Gwiazda, 174 Conn. 176, 177, 180, 383 A.2d 1348 (1978) (mandamus against defendant probate judge); Williams v. Cleaveland, 76 Conn. 426, 430, 56 A. 850 (1904) (proper method of obtaining review of refusal to permit a probate appeal is by application for a writ of mandamus); Honan v. Greene, 37 Conn.App. 137, 143-44, 655 A.2d 274 (1995) (same). Accordingly, contrary to the plaintiffs' argument, General Statutes § 45a-242(e), concerning the survival of suits against fiduciaries, is inapplicable here.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Honan v. Greene, 37 Conn.App. 137, 143, 655 A.2d 174 (1995). "Furthermore, [m]andamus neither gives nor defines rights which one does not already have. It enforces, it commands, performance of a duty. It acts at the instance of one having a complete and immediate legal right; it cannot and it does not act upon a doubtful or a contested right."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Honan v. Greene, 37 Conn.App. 137, 143, 655 A.2d 174 (1995). "If a public official or public agency has a duty to perform a particular act and fails in the discharge of that duty, a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy for compelling performance of the act."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Honan v. Greene, 37 Conn.App. 137, 143, 655 A.2d 174 (1995). "If a public official or public agency has a duty to perform a particular act and fails in the discharge of that duty, a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy for compelling performance of the act."
The writ will issue only when the person against whom it is directed is under a clear legal obligation to perform the act compelled and the party seeking the writ has a clear legal right to the performance. Honan v. Greene, 37 Conn.App. 137, 143. In order for the plaintiff to prevail on his petition for a writ of mandamus the court must be satisfied regarding the "clear legal right" upon which the claim is based. 20 Orchard Street L.L.C. v. WPCA of Brookfield, 78 Conn.App. 387, 391.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) See Honan v. Greene, 37 Conn.App. 137, 143, 655 A.2d 274 (1995). C.No Adequate Remedy at Law