Disputed Marital Status for Legal Heirship Must Be Determined by a Civil Court.

The petitioner, the brother of Somasundaram, challenged a legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar identifying the eighth respondent, Suba, as Somasundaram’s wife.

The petitioner maintained that Somasundaram had never married and disputed Suba’s claimed marital status, alleging that she had married other persons.

The certificate had been issued on the basis of an FIR lodged by Suba.

After the petitioner’s representation seeking cancellation was not acted upon, he filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Court noted that the competing claims concerned the existence and validity of the alleged marriage

Whether the Tahsildar could determine the disputed question of Suba’s marital status and her claim to be Somasundaram’s legal heir

Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the legal heirship certificate should be determined in writ proceedings or left to the appropriate Civil Court

The Court stated that a legal heirship certificate is a certificate of legal relationship and does not bind the parties.

A Tahsildar cannot adjudicate conflicting claims involving disputed facts, including the existence or validity of a marriage; such disputes require determination by a Civil Court

The Court referred to no specific statute or precedent in setting out these principles; the writ petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution

Suba’s FIR asserted that she had married Somasundaram and was living with him, while the petitioner denied the marriage and disputed her entitlement as his heir.

Resolving those competing accounts would require deciding contested facts and the validity of the alleged marriage—matters beyond the Tahsildar’s role in issuing a legal heirship certificate

Because the certificate did not bind the parties and the dispute was appropriately determined by a Civil Court, the Court left the petitioner to pursue that remedy

It disposed of the writ petition, preserving the petitioner’s liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed