The Karnataka High Court has ruled that revenue officials cannot deny a family tree certificate solely because deceased ancestors and surviving family members lived in different places, clarifying an important rule for citizens dealing with inheritance and other administrative procedures.
A single-judge bench led by Justice M.G.S. Kamal set aside the December 27, 2021 order that rejected B.S. Abhinandan Kumar’s appeal under Karnataka’s Sakala services framework. The case concerned orders issued by the Tahsildar of the Tavarekere sub-division in Bengaluru South taluk and the Bengaluru South Sub-Divisional Officer.
Kumar had sought a family tree certificate covering 11 members of his family. The Tahsildar rejected the application on the grounds that documents showing the addresses of all family members and death certificates of deceased members had not been provided. The Sub-Divisional Officer upheld that decision.
The High Court held that the Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue a surviving-family-members certificate under the Karnataka Sakala Services Act. It directed the Tahsildar to issue the certificate to the petitioner in accordance with the circular dated July 17, 2026, as referred to in the court’s order.
The court said the relevant consideration for issuing a family tree or surviving-member certificate is whether the applicants are descendants of deceased ancestors who lived within the jurisdiction of the concerned taluk, or whether they are lawful representatives claiming on the basis of the required documents. The present residence of surviving family members, by itself, cannot be treated as a reason to refuse the certificate.
The ruling distinguished a family tree certificate from a residence certificate. The court observed that a person seeking a residence certificate may be required to have lived within the jurisdiction of the relevant authority for a specified period. A family tree, however, originates with the deceased ancestor, and the ancestor’s permanent residence before death is the determining factor.
The court also noted that surviving-member certificates, genealogies and family tree certificates are required for several administrative purposes after a family member’s death. These include mutation of the names of lawful heirs in revenue records, securing employment, property transactions, partition claims and compensation rights.
The judgment stated that revenue officials may conduct local inspections and enquiries before issuing such certificates. However, if no objection or dispute emerges during that process, officials should not refuse to issue the certificate merely because family members live in different places or because some documents were not produced in the manner demanded by the authorities.
At the same time, the High Court clarified that disputes concerning legal inheritance or legal representation must be decided by a competent civil court under the laws governing evidence. The revenue certificate process cannot be used to conclusively determine contested succession rights, leaving disputed inheritance questions outside the scope of routine administrative certification.
