Allowed

Bincy K.P., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2019WP(C)/10385/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition filed by legal heirs seeking to quash a Legal Heirship Certificate issued under the Indian Succession Act, which erroneously included the deceased mother-in-law as a legal heir, holding she is not a Class I legal heir.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 legal heirship certificate quashed; direction to 3rd respondent to reconsider the application and delete name of 5th respondent within one month.

Bincy K.P., Vs State of Kerala — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.10385 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

1 BINCY K.P., AGED 32 YEARS W/O. LATE ROY VARGHESE, PUTHIYAKULANGARA HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU P.O., VALLUVALLY KARA, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT

¶8

2 MASTER ABEL ROY (MINOR), AGED 7 YEARS S/O.LATE ROY VARGHESE, PUTHIYAKULANGARA HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU P.O., VALLUVALLY KARA, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN BINCY.K.P.,-DO

¶9

3 MASTER AAROM ROY (MINOR) AGED 3 YEARS S/O.LATE ROY VARGHESE, PUTHIYAKULANGARA HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU P.O., VALLUVALLY KARA, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN BINCY.K.P.,-DO

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001. 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,PIN-682030

¶13

3 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVUR, PIN-683 513

¶14

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE OFFICE, PIN-683 519

¶15

5 MARY VARGHESE, MOTHER OF LATE ROY VARGHESE, PUTHIYAKULANGARA HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU P.O., VALLUVALLY, PIN-683 518 R1 to R4 bY SMT.RESHMI.K.M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.10385 of 2019

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

¶21

seeking the following reliefs:

¶22

I) To set aside Ext.P2 of the 3^rd respondent Tahasildar dated 7.10.2016 and direct him to delete the name of the 5^th respondent from the list of legal heirs; and

¶23

II) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.

¶24

Basically the contentions advanced in the writ petition is that, 5^th respondent, who is the mother of the deceased husband of the 1^st petitioner and father

¶25

of respondents 2 & 3, is not a legal heir entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased person, however, in Ext.P2 legal heirship certificate issued by the 3^rd respondent, name of the 5^th respondent is also included.

¶26

A statement is filed by the 2^nd respondent

¶27

stating that, under the Christian Law, the mother of

¶28

the deceased is not a class I legal heir, however, by mistake Ext.P2 certificate is issued incorporating the

¶29

name of the 5^th respondent also. But fact remains, there is no power vested with the Tahsildar to review

¶30

WP(C).No.10385 of 2019 3

¶31

the order passed by the Tahsildar.

¶32

Having heard respective counsel across the Bar

¶33

and perusing the pleadings and documents on record, I am of the considered opinion that, since the 5^th respondent is not a class I legal heir as per the Indian Succession Act entitled to succeed to the estate or otherwise of the deceased husband of the 1^st petitioner, who is the son of the 5^th respondent, Ext.P2 legal heirship certificate issued by the 3^rd respondent cannot be sustained under law.

¶34

Therefore, I quash Ext.P2 and there will be a

¶35

direction to the 3^rd respondent to re-consider the application taking into account the above legal aspect, at the earliest possible time and at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

Smv 1.8.2019

JUDGE

WP(C).No.10385 of 2019

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE EMBASSY OF INDIA, MUSCAT DATED 5.3.2019 IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.10.2016
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF 2ND PETITIONER ABEL ROY
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF 3RD PETITIONER AARON ROY
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 3.6.2010 FROM THE ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT

Bincy K.P., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bincy K.P., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.M.A Oil Mill, Vs State of Kerala

Angela Johnikutty Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Rajeev Vs the Additional District Magistrate

Nivin P.I. Vs the Commissioner for Entrance Examination

K.Suresh Kumar Vs the Registrar of Companies

Byjou T. Vs Bank of Baroda,Thalassery Branch