"Madras High Court: 'Best Judgment Must Be Made'—Affidavits from Applicant, Relatives, and Neighbors Can Aid Legal Heir Certificate Inquiry"
Kiran Raj
The Madras High Court has set aside an order rejecting an application for a legal heir certificate, directing authorities to conduct a further inquiry and determine the rightful legal heirs based on available materials. The case was heard by Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, who observed that in instances where legal heirship remains uncertain, the best judgment must be applied in deciding rightful heirs. “Each and every fact cannot be verified in view of the efflux of time. The best judgment has to be made on the basis of the available materials and the persons have to be declared as legal heirs,” the court stated.
The court instructed the Tahsildar of Mylapore Taluk to conduct further inquiry and reconsider the petitioner’s application while providing an opportunity to submit supporting affidavits and documents. The process is to be completed within twelve weeks.
The petitioner, Arasu S, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the respondent, the Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk, in Application No. TN-720220330398, dated April 1, 2024. The petitioner also sought a direction to issue a legal heir certificate concerning the late C.P. Subramaniyam @ Subramani.
The petition arose following the rejection of the petitioner’s application for a legal heir certificate. The court noted that the death of the deceased had been duly reported, but no legal heir certificate had previously been applied for. The Tahsildar conducted an inquiry but was unable to conclusively determine the legal heirs of the deceased, leading to the rejection of the application.
The petitioner contended that the rejection was arbitrary, as legal heirship could be established through affidavits and supporting documentation. The petitioner sought relief from the court, arguing that the rejection of the application failed to consider available means of verification.
The court considered the petitioner’s submissions and reviewed the rejection order issued by the Tahsildar. It observed that upon the death of an individual, when an application is made for a legal heir certificate, authorities must determine the rightful legal heirs. The judgment recorded: “Once the death is reported, when an application is made for legal heirship certificate, it has to be determined as to who are the legal heirs.”
The court noted that, even in the absence of clear documentary evidence, legal heirship can be verified through affidavits from family members, relatives, and neighbors. “Even if there is no other proof, the petitioner can be directed to file affidavits and he can also arrange for five affidavits of the persons known to the family, which will include relatives and neighbors. On that basis, the report has to be forwarded to the respondent,” the court recorded.
The judgment also addressed the passage of time since the deceased’s demise in 1998, observing that strict verification of each fact may not be feasible. However, the authorities must exercise their best judgment in determining legal heirs based on available materials.
The court set aside the impugned order dated April 1, 2024, and directed the petitioner to appear before the Tahsildar for further inquiry on March 28, 2025. The respondent was instructed to allow the petitioner to submit necessary affidavits and other supporting documents. If required, the matter may be referred to the Revenue Inspector for additional inquiry.
The court further directed that the authorities complete the verification process within twelve weeks from the date of receipt or production of a web copy of the order. The judgment clarified that the petitioner could file a fresh application if necessary, pending permission for reopening the rejected application.
The court disposed of the petition with these directions, stating: “The above exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a web-copy of this order without waiting for a certified copy of this order.” No order was made regarding costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. I. Calvin Jones
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. S. Balamurugan, Government Advocate
Case Title: Arasu S v. The Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk
Case Number: W.P.No.7978 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.8958 of 2025
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
[Read/Download order]
