A legal heir certificate application should not be rejected solely due to discrepancies with a civil decree if the applicant can provide documentary evidence to establish the relationship of additional legal heirs.

PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned rejection order in Application No.TN-7202512162726 in Ref.No.TNTACRMD009000054840 dated 16.12.2025 passed by 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue legal Heir Ship Certificate in compliance with the Judgment in O.S.No.97 of 2022 passed by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram dated 27.02.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vidhya Sagar,

For Respondents : M/s.Farjana Ghoushia,

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The present writ petition has been field challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent herein, wherein the request of the petitioner for the issuance of a legal heir certificate has been rejected on the ground that the legal heirs names found in the application are different from the names of the legal heirs as found in the Civil Court decree.

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, his grand father, namely, Mohamed Meerakani, passed away in the year 1969 and his sister had filed O.S.No.97 of 2022 before the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram seeking for a declaration that the plaintiff and the defendants are the legal heirs. A direction was also sought for as against the Thasildhar, Ramanathapuram to issue a legal heir certificate and the suit was decreed on 27.02.2025. Based upon the decree, the petitioner has approached the fourth respondent seeking the issuance of a legal heir certificate, the said application was rejected on the sole ground that three new parties were being sought to be shown as legal heirs of deceased, Mohamed Meerakani.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the three new parties namely, Ibrahim Ammal, Seenikkatti and Pathumuthu Ammal are the wife, father and mother of the deceased Mohamed Meerakani. Therefore, their names have to be included in the legal heir certificate. The petitioner has also produced the records to show their relationship as well as the death certificate of these three additional parties who were not parties to the suit.

4. In view of the above said facts, the impugned order in the writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent is directed to reconsider the said issue and the petitioner is directed to produce the records to establish the fact that Ibrahim Ammal, Seenikkatti and Pathumuthu Ammal, who are the wife, father and mother of the deceased Mohamed Meerakani. In case, all the documents are presented by the writ petitioner, the issue shall be resolved by the Thasildhar within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the records.

5. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.