Case Overview

The petitioner, Arasu S., filed the application regarding the demise of C.P. Subramaniyam (also known as Subramani), who passed away on December 19, 1998. The application (No. TN-720220330398) sought a legal heirship certificate, but was summarily rejected by the Tahsildar of Mylapore Taluk vide an impugned order dated April 1, 2024, on the ground that the revenue authority "could not come to a conclusion" during its initial inquiry.

Core Arguments Advanced by Mr. I. Calvin Jones

Representing the petitioner, advocate I. Calvin Jones challenged the rejection order and argued that the revenue authority's failure to conclude its inquiry could not defeat a valid application. His submissions covered the following four grounds:

• 1

  Arbitrary Rejection of the Application

  Rejecting an application simply because the revenue authority "could not come to a conclusion" during its initial inquiry constitutes a failure to exercise statutory duty.

• 2

  Obligation to Determine Heirship Despite "Efflux of Time"

  While a significant period had elapsed since the death, the passing of time does not absolve revenue authorities of their obligation to verify and officially establish the legal heirs once a formal application is submitted.

• 3

  Availability of Alternative Verification Methods

  A lack of traditional documentary proof should not be a dead-end. Authorities can direct the applicant to submit independent affidavits from family members, relatives, and neighbors familiar with the family tree as a dependable evidentiary basis.

• 4

  Application of "Best Judgment" Rule in the Absence of Rival Claims

  Since there was no competing or rival claim to the estate, the authority should evaluate the case using the "best judgment" principle, grounded reasonably on the overall available material and local consensus.