Legally issued heirship certificates can only be altered based on valid decrees; parties can contest such decrees in a proper legal proceeding.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.G.Velu Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned legal heir certificate dated 31.07.2015 issued by the second respondent and to direct the second respondent to restore the legal heirship certificate that was issued by the second respondent to the petitioners dated

20.12.2014.

2. Heard Mr.T.Karunakaran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.Velu, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

3. The case of the petitioners is that their father married Shri.G.Banumathi and through the wedlock, the petitioners were born. The mother of the petitioners died on 14.07.2001. It seems that the petitioners' father developed a relationship with one G.Jansi Rani, who is the third respondent. Ultimately, the petitioners' father died on

17.10.2013. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for legal heirship certificate and the legal heirship certificate was issued by mentioning the names of the petitioners.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.305 of 2014 and managed to get an ex parte decree dated 18.04.2015 and by virtue of this decree, the third respondent has also managed to get her name included in the legal heirship certificate and in that process, the legal heirship certificate, that was already issued to the petitioners, was cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that already steps are being taken to challenge the decree passed in O.S.No.305 of 2014 dated 18.04.2015, since such a decree was obtained behind the back of the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.305 of 2014 dated 18.04.2015 does not entitle the second respondent to cancel the legal heirship certificate that was already granted in the name of the petitioners. If really the Tahsildar was complying with the decree passed by the Civil Court, he should have issued a fresh legal heirship certificate in the name of the third respondent and in any case, the petitioners would have challenged the same. However, the third respondent has cancelled the legal heirship certificate that was issued in the name of the petitioners earlier through proceedings dated 20.12.2014, which ought not to have been done by the second respondent.

6. In the considered view of this Court, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that already legal heirship certificate was issued in the name of the petitioners. Pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.305 of 2014, the fresh legal heirship certificate was issued by the second respondent by adding the name of the third respondent and the names of the petitioners were also included in the legal heirship certificate. Therefore, the only difference between the previous legal heirship certificate and the present legal heirship certificate, that has been put to challenge, is that there is addition of the name of the third respondent in the certificate.

7. The second respondent had no other choice except to include the name of the third respondent in the legal heirship certificate because of the ex parte decree passed by the Civil Court. If according to the petitioners, some decree is obtained behind the back of the petitioners and is non est in the eye of law, they can always question the said decree and get the name of the third respondent removed from the legal heirship certificate. Till that process is undertaken and the decree is set aside, the second respondent cannot refuse to add the name of the third respondent in the l