Disposed¶30

Usha v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC9 Feb 2026WP(MD)/3417/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal Heir Certificate; certiorarified mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; WP(MD) No.3417 of 2026; W.M.P(MD) No.2835 of 2026; Tahsildar Nanguneri Taluk Tirunelveli; rejection on ground of two wives; second wife and son inclusion; consensus enquiry; remand to revenue authority; 12-week completion timeline; Saravanan; Rani; Usha; R.Vijayakumar J.; disposed of; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order set aside; matter remitted to the first respondent (Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk) to conduct an enquiry and pass a fresh order on the Legal Heir Certificate if all parties arrive at a consensus on inclusion of names, to be completed within 12 weeks from date of receipt; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition W.M.P(MD).No.2835 of 2026 closed. ¶30

Usha Vs The Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the online rejection order dated 20.01.2026 refusing the petitioner's application for a Legal Heir Certificate on the ground that her deceased father had two wives should be quashed, and whether a fresh certificate covering all legal heirs (including the fourth respondent and her son) should be issued after enquiry and consensus.

¶23

Court's answer

The impugned online rejection order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the first respondent.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry and pass a fresh order on the Legal Heir Certificate if all the parties arrive at a consensus with regard to the inclusion of their names.

¶29

Key takeaways

The enquiry and fresh-order exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Certiorarified Mandamus, Article 226) before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court challenging the Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk's online rejection (Application No.TN-720251231746, dt.20.01.2026) of Usha's application for a Legal Heir Certificate for her deceased father Saravanan (d.10.08.2021), refused on the ground that he had two wives; the fourth respondent (Rani) was said to be the second wife with a son through the deceased. The petitioner consented to inclusion of the fourth respondent and her son. The court set aside the rejection and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and pass a fresh order if all parties reach a consensus on inclusion of names, within 12 weeks; petition disposed of without costs; connected W.M.P(MD).No.2835 of 2026 closed.

¶1

WP(MD). No.3417 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 09/02/2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

WP(MD). No.3417 of 2026 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD).No.2835 of 2026

Usha,

... Petitioner

The Tahsildar,

¶12

Nanguneri Taluk Office, Tirunelveli District..

¶13

The Revenue Inspector,, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District..

¶14

The Village Administrative Officer, Munanjipatti Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District..

¶15

Rani, ... Respondents

¶16

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 records relating to the online rejection

¶17

1/5

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

WP(MD). No.3417 of 2026

¶20

order passed by the 1st respondent in Application No.TN-720251231746, dated 20.01.2026, quash the same, and consequently direct the first respondent to issue a Legal Heir Certificate in respect of the petitioner's deceased father by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2026.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.Subramanian S, For R1 to R3 : M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent herein on 20.01.2026, wherein the request of the petitioner for the issuance of a legal heir certificate for the death of her father has been rejected on the ground that her father had two wives.

¶24

According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner's father, Saravanan, passed away on 10.08.2021 leaving behind the petitioner, Muthu Sundar and Muthu as his legal heirs. The revenue officials informed that the fourth respondent is the second wife of the petitioner's father and she has also got a son through the late Saravanan. Therefore, the present impugned order has been passed rejecting the issuance of the legal heir certificate.

¶25

2/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

WP(MD). No.3417 of 2026

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has no objection for including the name of the fourth respondent and her son in the legal heir certificate.

¶29

In view of the above submission, the impugned order in the writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry and pass a fresh order, if all the parties arrive at a consensus with regard to the inclusion of their names in the legal heir certificate. The exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt

¶30