SURESH BABU S v. THE STATE OF KERALA

BY ADVS. ALIAS M.CHERIAN K.M.RAPHY BRISTO S PARIYARAM VIVEK RADHAKRISHNAN AJAI ALIAS CHALAPPURAM SRI.P.S.APPU, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22911 OF 2022 -3- JUDGMENT The petitioner’s wife unfortunately died and he applied for Legal Heirship Certificate, citing himself as the only legal heir since they were without any children. However, it appears that respondents 5 and 6 – who are the sisters of the deceased wife of the petitioner – raised an objection, that the application for Legal Heirship Certificate cannot be considered by the competent Authority, because they are entitled to the property in question, it having been inherited by the deceased from her family.

It transpires that, thereupon, Ext.P7 was issued by the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar, rejecting the petitioner’s application, which was confirmed by Ext.P9 order of the 2nd respondent – District Collector. The petitioner impugns both these orders as being illegal and unlawful. WP(C) NO. 22911 OF 2022 -4-

Pertinently, Sri. Alias M. Cherian – learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6, in response to the afore submissions made by Sri.J.R.Prem Navaz – learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that his clients are not the de jure legal heirs of the deceased, but are entitled to the property in question, since she had inherited it from their family, while she was alive. He relied upon Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and added that a Suit has already been filed by his clients with a claim over the property. He submitted that, therefore, even if this Court is inclined to set aside Exts.P7 and P9 and direct the competent Authority to issue Legal Heirship Certificate to the petitioner, it may be clarified that it cannot be used by him with respect to the property in question, as long as the Civil Suit WP(C) NO. 22911 OF 2022 -5- is pending.

The learned Government Pleader – Sri.P.S.Appu, submitted that the impugned orders were issued by the competent Authorities only because of the internecine disputes presented between the parties and also because Ext.P6 Suit is stated to have been filed by the party respondents against the petitioner. He added that the official respondents will abide by any decision to be taken by this Court.

It is evident from the afore submissions of the rival parties that, what really is at stake between them is a property which was owned by the deceased. The petitioner seems to claim the said property on the strength of his being her sole legal heir; while, the party respondents stake their claim over it, as evident from Ext.P6 Suit, on the ground that Section 15 of the ‘Act’ entitles them to do so WP(C) NO. 22911 OF 2022 -6- as ‘reversionaries’.

Obviously, this Court cannot enter into the merits of any of the rival contentions of the parties, particularly when it relates to a matter which is pending before the competent Civil Court. As matters now stand, it is clear that, for the purpose of issuance of a Legal Heirship Certificate, petitioner’s claim cannot be rejected solely for the reason that respondents 5 and 6 are the sisters of the deceased. Since this is acceded to by both sides, I am of the view that this writ petition deserves to be allowed; however, in the following manner: (a) The impugned orders, namely Exts.P7 and P9, are quashed; and consequently, the 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and issue a proper Legal Heirship certificate, notwithstanding any WP(C) NO. 22911 OF 2022 -7- objection to be raised by respondents 5 and 6. (b) I, however, clarify that the afore directions, or the consequent Legal Heirship Certificate to be issued to the petitioner - if found entitled, would not in any manner impede the rights of the party respondents as impelled in Ext.P6 Suit; and the parties are at liberty to invoke and pursue every remedy as may be available to them in law with respect to the same.