Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022/9TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16296 OF 2021 PETITIONER: JOHN THARAKAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.KUNJUNINA MATHAI, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, KANNAMKODE P.O., ADOOR-691 523. BY ADVS. P.JAYABAL MENON REKHA AGARWAL RESPONDENTS: 1 THE THAHISLDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR-691 523. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OPPOSITE REVENUE TOWER, ADOOR-691 523. SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL, G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2022 The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent requiring the petitioner to submit three separate applications for issuance of Heirship Certificate in respect of the assets of late Leela Tharakan, Mathew Tharakan and their son Vishal Tharakan.
2. The petitioner states that along with his two
brothers and a sister, the petitioner applied for the Heirship Certificate of their brother late P. Mathew Tharakan. The wife of the deceased, Leela Tharakan pre-deceased her husband and son on 14.03.2017, leaving her husband, P. Mathew Tharakan, and her son Vishal Tharakan as surviving legal heirs. Mathew Tharakan passed away on 24.06.2017, leaving his son Vishal Tharakan as the only surviving legal heir. Vishal Tharakan also passed away on 03.07.2020, leaving his grandmother Annamma Mathai as the only surviving legal heir. Annamma Mathai passed away on 11.10.2020 leaving her children, P. Raju Tharakan, P. Jacob Tharakan, Mariamma Thomas and the petitioner.
3. In Ext.P1, the 1st respondent-Tahdildar has taken
a stand that the schedule of legal heirs of late Leela Tharakan, Mathew Tharakan and Vishal Tharakan is different and, therefore, the petitioner needs to submit three separate applications for all the above mentioned deceased persons. The petitioner would contend that the stand of the 1 st respondent is illegal and unsustainable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that
as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, there cannot be separate schedule of succession for any of the deceased, as alleged in Ext.P1, and hence, there is no necessity to submit three different applications. No other statute also prescribes filing of three different applications. The 1st respondent has misread the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, contended the petitioner.
5. In the circumstances, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P1 and to compel the 1st respondent to issue Heirship Certificate of Leela Tharakan, Mathew Tharakan and Vishal Tharakan as detailed in Ext.P2.
6. The learned Government Pleader contested the
writ petition filing a Statement on behalf of the respondents. The respondents submitted that the Legal Heirship Certificate is issued in a particular format with the schedule of legal heirs showing the relationship with the deceased. As the legal heirs of the three deceased persons in this case are different, the applicant was asked to submit three applications with relevant report for issuing Heirship Certificates separately. Since legal heirs of each deceased person in this case are different, application for Heirship Certificate has to be considered separately, which fact was informed to the petitioner.
7. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that on the death of Vishal Tharakan on 03.07.2020, the nearest surviving legal heir was his grandmother Annamma Mathai. Annamma Mathai passed away on 11.10.2020. The application for Heirship Certificate was received only on 20.04.2021, long after the death of Annamma Mathai.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
9. The Heirship Certificates are issued under Clause
261 of the Village Manual. Section 261 of the Village Manual states that the Heirship Certificates should be issued for mandatory claims upto a limit of `5,000/- only. If there is dispute with regard to the legal heirs, the parties should be left to approach the competent Forum to obtain Succession Certificate.
10. In this case, the Tahsildar has considered the matter and found that the issuance of Heirship Certificate in respect of Mathew Tharakan alone will not be possible. The petitioner has to make three separate applications.
11. Going by the dates of death of the persons in the
family and complicated legal issues involved, this Court is of the view that the Tahsildar may not be able or competent to issue Heirship Certificate. The petitioner has not indicated as to for what purpose the Heirship Certificate is required. The proper remedy for the petitioner in the circumstances, is to approach the competent Civil Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for establishment of succession. It is made clear that it will also be open to the petitioner to submit three applications as suggested by the Tahsildar in Ext.P1, if the petitioner is so advised.
Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd/28.02.2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16296/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C2-6207/2021 DATED 02.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED TO EXHIBIT P1. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2-6207/2021 DATED 30.07.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.