Legal heirship certificates require clear documentary evidence to establish relationships among heirs.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P(MD).No.19438 of 2025 Velusamy Gounder ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Aravakurichi Taluk Office, Karur Dsitrict.

2.The Revenue Inspector, Aravakurichi Revenue Inspector Office, Karur District.

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Senthamangalam East Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur - District. ...Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated Nil, rejecting the petitioner's application for legal heir certificate bearing Application No.TN - 7202502141689 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the 1st respondent to issue legal heirship certificate in favour of the petitioner and his brothers name as the legal heirs of petitioner's father Karuppana Gounder.

For Petitioner : Mr.Balakrishnan R For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Special Government Pleader

ORDER

Mr.D.Ghandiraj, Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The petitioner claims to be the son of late Karuppana Goundar, who died on 14.04.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that his father, late Karuppana Goundar, was married to one Ponnammal, and that, apart from the petitioner, he had another son named Palanisamy. To that effect, a self-declaration has also been filed for obtaining the necessary legal heir certificate from the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned communication, rejecting the application filed on 14.02.2025 on the ground that the names of other legal heirs have not been mentioned and have been left out, is incorrect. A reference is made to a copy of the death certificate of the petitioner's father, issued on 24.04.2012. It is further submitted that the records of the Family Card for the period from 2005 to 2009 contain the names of the family members of late Karuppanna Goundar, namely, Velusamy, Sangeetha, Prakash, Saraswathi, Poongodi, Karuppanna Gounder, Ponnammal, Pazhanisamy, and Tamizharasi.

5. The petitioner had obtained an Aadhaar card on 06.09.2013, wherein he had clearly mentioned the name of his father as Karuppanna Goundar. However, in the Aadhaar card obtained by the petitioner's brother, Palanisamy, dated 13.10.2012, he had mentioned as “care of Natchiyappan” instead of his father name.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that there is no clarity as to whether the petitioner's father’s name is “Karuppanna Gounder” or “Karuppanna Gouder.” That apart, in the driving licence of the petitioner's brother, issued on 15.07.2022, the name of the father has been mentioned as Natchiyappa Gounder.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, and upon perusal of the documents filed in support of the present Writ Petition, it is seen that in Land Patta No.229, issued by the revenue authorities, the petitioner's father is recorded as “Karuppanna Gounder’s son, Chinna Nachiyappan alias Karuppanna Gounder.” This indicates that the petitioner's father is Karuppanna Gounder, whose other name is Natchiyappan, which is the name reflected in the Aadhaar card issued to the petitioner’s brother, Palanisamy.

8. Considering the above, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is quashed, and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to re-appr