The Madras High Court in the case D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar observed while allowing the petition filled by a woman for issuing the legal heir certificate for her deceased brother. Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose, the bench of Madras High Court reiterated that there was no bar to issuing a legal heir certificate to a class-II heir. A Writ petition for mandamus has been filled before the court for seeking the directions for issuance of the legal heirship certificate for D.Dhanapal who died on 25.11.2017 and on 05.03.2021 an application was submitted by the petitioner within the prescribed time frame to be fixed by this Court. On 25.11.2017, the petitioner’s brother D.Dhanapal died as a bachelor. On an application dated 05.03.2021, it was submitted by the petitioner before the court for issuance of a legal heirship certificate for the deceased brother. The petitioner along with all the other necessary documents had filled the death certificate of the deceased, Thereafter the respondent Tahsildar still not considered the same. The Court observed that the petitioner’s application was still pending. Further the Court opined that the application should be considered on the merits after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner. The Court in its order stated: If the petitioner’s application is considered on the merits and in accordance with the law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner and the other persons, whom the respondent deems fit to enquire and No prejudice would be caused to the respondent deems fit to enquire. However, it was directed by the Court that the respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner’s application on merits and after affording her a fair hearing and after hearing any such other person that the respondent deems fit to inquire. The directions were issued to the respondent Tahsildar to pass the final orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.Uma and learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, Mr.SJ. Mohammed Sathik, Heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel representinG.
