Vijay George v. The Tahsildar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.12.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Vijay George ... Petitioner Vs.
The Tahsildar, Kundrathar Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu.
... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to rectify/quash the impugned legal heirship certificate dated 10.10.2025 bearing Certificate No.TN-720250924850 issued by the respondent herein and consequently, issue a fresh legal heirship certificate showing only the petitioner and his minor daughters as legal heirs of the deceased petitioner's wife. For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Priyanka For Respondent :
Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
Challenging the Legal Heirship Certificate, dated 10.10.2025, issued by the respondent including the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.
2.According to the petitioner, the writ petitioner and his wife, namely Bhuvana Vijay, were residing at United Kingdom and due to cancer, the petitioner's wife died on 18.08.2025, leaving behind the petitioner and his two minor daughters. The death of the petitioner's wife was also registered by the High Commission of India, London, dated 01.09.2025. For the last rites, Mrs.Bhuvana Vijay was brought down to India and her final rites were performed and she was cremated in India. Later, when the petitioner applied for Legal Heirship Certificate before the respondent, the respondent issued the impugned Legal Heirship Certificate bearing No. TN-720250924850 dated 10.10.2025, in which, the name of the petitioner's father-in-law Mr.Ramachandran Venkataraman has also been included as one of the legal heirs. According to the petitioner, since the name of his father-in-law is also shown as a legal heir, the same has created many problems while dealing with the petitioner's wife's Bank Accounts,
immovable properties, insurances and others. Hence, the petitioner seeks to quash the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the respondent. 3.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and his wife are Hindus and half of the properties were purchased by the petitioner's wife and the remaining half of the properties were purchased by the petitioner. After the death of the petitioner's wife, since the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner is included in the Legal Heirship Certificate, that will create serious problems in matters involving the properties of the petitioner's wife.
4.Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that, mere issuance of the Legal Heirship Certificate will not take away of the legal rights of the petitioner. The Legal Heirship Certificate is only a relationship certificate, which will not alter the status of the parties to claim right in the properties. Therefore, merely because the name of the father-in-law is found in the Legal Heirship Certificate, that will not take away the rights of the petitioner as per the personal law.
5.I have perused the entire materials available on record. 6.In the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the respondent, the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner, viz., Mr.Ramachandran Venkataraman, is also included as one of the legal heirs, apart from the petitioner and his two minor children. It is relevant to note that, since it is stated that the petitioner and his wife are Hindus and the properties were purchased jointly by the petitioner and his wife, any property held by a female member of a Hindu family will be dealt as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not beyond that. When the husband and children are very much available, the property firstly goes to the husband and children of the deceased female as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Such being the position, mere inclusion of the name of the father-in-law in the Legal Heirship Certificate, will not take away the legal rights of the petitioner or his children.
7.With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
09.12.2025 mkn
Internet : Yes Index : Yes Speaking order : Yes To The Tahsildar, Kundrathar Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn 09.12.2025