admittedly, it is pleaded that the suit property is the property belonging to the deceased P.Kannan, as rightly argued, Unnamalai also one of the legal heirs would be entitled to claim a share in the suit property. However, it is seen that the plaintiff, for the reasons best known to her, had not chosen to implead Unnamalai as a party to the proceedings. Be that as it may, it is found that the plaintiff has not whispered in her evidence as to how come the details of the legal heirs of Kannan had been ascertained by the concerned authority. In this connection, as adverted above, according to the plaintiff, the Thasildar enquired and issued the legal heir certificate and for the said purpose, the Thasildar examined the plaintiff and her brother-in-law kapali. It is therefore seen that other than the above said two persons, the Thasildar has not examined the defendant as well as the mother of the deceased Kannan to ascertain whether the plaintiff is the legally wedded second wife of the deceased Kannan, on the other hand, even as per the admission of the plaintiff, only her statement and the statement of Kapali, who is not well disposed of towards the defendant, had been examined as to the status of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is seen that they having given the particulars to the Thasildar and it is seen that the Thasildar, without conducting any further enquiry, particularly, with the defendant and Unnamalai, had chosen to issue the certificate Ex.A3. It is further found that on the foot of the certificate Ex.A3, it has been stated that the certificate is not issued under the provisions of the Succession Act and the Certificate http://www.judis.nic.in
