Judgment 1. Inveighing the order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the District Munsif, Cheyyar in O.S.S.R.No.1528 of 2012, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the entertaining stage itself. 3. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (i) The revision petitioner herein filed the plaint with the following prayer: "To pass a judgment and decree: i) For a declaration that the plaintiff and 3 to 6 defendants are legal heirs of deceased Govinda Pillai and Kuppu Pillai @ Kuppusamy Pillai and in consequence thereof for a mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to issue legal heirship to the plaintiff and 3 to 6 defendants; ii) For costs of this suit." (extracted as such) (ii) However, the lower Court returned the plaint after repeated returns and representations with the following endorsements: Returned: “Tamil” Returned: Previous return to be complied with time for 15 days. Sd/- 5.6.2012 Represented: As per Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, the son of pre-deceased son, daughter of predeceased son are legal heirs. Hence can be impleaded as they are added as pro-forma defendants. Section 8 Hindu – Adueck – for petition Succession Act. Sd/- 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said returns of the plaint, this civil revision petition has been focussed on various grounds. 5. At the outset itself I would like to point out that the lower Court was totally wrong in construing as though a declaratory relief relating to the heirship could be prayed only in favour of the plaintiff and not in favour of the defendants. It is for the plaintiff to approach the Court with appropriate prayer that the plaintiff as well as some of the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased propositus and it is for the plaintiffs to prove the same at the time of trial, and it is premature on the part of the lower Court to simply observe and return the plaint by stating that only the plaintiff could ask for declaration of his legal heirship. 6. While holding so, I would like to point out that the plaintiff was totally unjustified in making a prayer to mandate the Tahsildar to issue legal heirship certificate. Such portion of the prayer is untenable and that should be eschewed. 7. 6. While holding so, I would like to point out that the plaintiff was totally unjustified in making a prayer to mandate the Tahsildar to issue legal heirship certificate. Such portion of the prayer is untenable and that should be eschewed. 7. It is a well settled proposition of law that the legal heirship certificates issued by the Tahsildar are not under any statute and he is also not the competent authority, leagally. Only for administrative purpose, they are issuing such certificates, over which, the Courts are not concerned. Whenever there arises any dispute, such legal heirship certificates issued by the Tahsildar are having no back up of the law. As such, that prayer has to be deleted. 8. Next, the question of consequential prayer would arise. The perusal of the plaint would reveal that the plaintiff is in need of Court's assistance, because, the proposed purchaser of her alleged property demands evidence to prove as to who are all the legal heirs of the deceased Govindapillai, in whose name the property stands. In such a case, there should be consequential prayer for declaring the ownership of the property, as contemplated under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, along with the prayer for declaration of heirship of the plaintiff and other defendants. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference. "Section 34. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right – Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so." Accordingly, based on that, the forum has to be chosen and also the suit should be valued and Court fee paid with appropriate reliefs incorporated in the plaint. 9. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs.