Allowed

Jyothi Mary Jacob v. the Tahasildar

Kerala HC1 Feb 2021WP(C)/339/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court held that under Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, parents cannot be legal heirs if a wife and son survive. Directing the Tahsildar to issue a corrected Legal Heirship Certificate listing only the wife and son within one month; the existing certificate was set aside without requiring new gazette publication.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to issue a corrected Legal Heirship Certificate including only petitioners 1 and 2 within one month; Ext.P1 set aside.

Jyothi Mary Jacob Vs the Tahasildar — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.339 OF 2021(N)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 JYOTHI MARY JACOB AGED 46 YEARS W/O. THE LATE SUJIN MATHEW GEORGE, R/O. 54/2549, VRINDAVAN COLONY, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM-19.

¶8

2 GEORGE MATHEW MANNIL, AGED 20 YEARS

¶9

S/O. THE LATE SUJIN MATHEW GEORGE, R/O. 54/2549, VRINDAVAN COLONY, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM-19.

¶10

3 GEORGE MATHEW, AGED 79 YEARS S/O. MANNIL GEE VARGHESE MATHEW, MANNIL PUTHEN PURAYIL, MULAKUZHA (PART) MULAKUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-689505.

¶11

4 ANNAMMA GEORGE, AGED 79 YEARS

¶12

W/O. GEORGE MATHEW, MANNIL PUTHEN PURAYIL, MULAKUZHA (PART) MULAKUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-689505.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.NELSON JOSEPH SRI.M.D.JOSEPH

¶14

SHRI.DEEPAK ASHOK KUMAR

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 THE TAHASILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-11.

¶17

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-11.

¶18

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.339 OF 2021(N)

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Dated this the 01^st day of February 2021

¶24

The petitioners 1 and 2 are the wife and son of

¶25

the deceased Sujin Mathew George and petitioners 3

¶26

and 4 are the father and mother respectively of late Sujin Mathew George. It is stated that the 3^rd petitioner had submitted an application for Legal Heirship certificate. Based on the said

¶27

application, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P1 Legal Heirship certificate on 12.08.2013 including all

¶28

the petitioners as legal heirs. Relationship Certificate is also issued along with that. Sujin Mathew George died intestate on 23.11.2012. The petitioners came to know that as per Indian Succession Act, 1925, the legal heirs of late Sujin Mathew George would only be the wife and son and

¶29

the father and mother cannot be the legal heirs of the deceased as long as the wife and son are alive. On noticing this defect in this legal Heirship Certificate, the 1^st petitioner submitted Ext.P2

¶30

WP(C).No.339 OF 2021(N)

¶31

¶32

application for correction in the Legal Heirship Certificate on 17.11.2020 by producing Ext.P3 consent letter of the petitioners 3 and 4 who are

¶33

the parents of the deceased. The 1^st respondent rejected the said application as per Ext.P4 letter stating that he does not have any authority to correct the Legal Heirship Certificate as the said certificate was issued after publication in the gazette calling for objections. So, he advised the 1^st petitioner to approach the Civil court, relying on Ext.P5 Government Order dated 31.7.2009 which refers to provisions contained in paragraph 261 of Kerala Village Manual.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶35

points out that the provision contained in

¶36

paragraph 261 of Kerala Village Manual refers to a case where there is a dispute. In the present case there is no dispute and the consent of the parents of the deceased was already furnished and therefore

¶37

the 1^st respondent is having the authority to correct.

¶38

WP(C).No.339 OF 2021(N)

¶39

¶40

The learned Government Pleader submits that

¶41

the Tahsildar does not have any authority to review his orders especially when the Legal Heirship Certificate is issued after calling for objections and publication in the gazette. It is also pointed out that the Legal Heirship Certificate was issued on 12.08.2013 and application for correction was submitted on 17.11.2020 after a period of more than 7 years. Therefore, the Tahsildar can not be said to have any power to correct the same.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶43

petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶44

It is an admitted fact that the parents of

¶45

the deceased Sujin Mathew George can not be his legal heirs in tune with Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In the present case parents

¶46

who are included in Ext.P1 Legal Heirship

¶47

Certificate has also approached this Court along with the wife and son of the deceased for correction of the Legal Heirship Certificate and

¶48

¶49

WP(C).No.339 OF 2021(N)

¶50

for issuance of the same in accordance with the

¶51

provisions contained in the Act.

¶52

Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to issue a certificate in

¶53

accordance with the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, including the petitioners 1 and 2 alone in the Legal Heirship Certificate. Ext.P1 Legal Heirship Certificate

¶54

shall stand set aside for enabling the 1^st respondent to issue Legal Heirship Certificate in accordance with law. Further publication would not

¶55

be necessary in the present case as the petitioners

¶56

3 and 4 has already joined in this writ petition and there was no objection in the original proceedings from anybody. Such a certificate shall be issued within a period of 'one month' from the date receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶57

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶58

Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶59

¶60

WP(C).No.339 OF 2021(N)

¶61

¶62

APPENDIX

¶63

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶64

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 12.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶65

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 18.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD AND 4TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A5-18815/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.12.2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.18939/T2/2008/REVENUE DATED 31.7.2009.

¶66

RESPONDENTS EXIBITS : NIL

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

PA TO JUDGE

Jyothi Mary Jacob v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothi Mary Jacob v. the Tahasildar

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

M. Azeez Vs the District Magistrate, Malappuram

Adv. R.V. Sujit Kumar Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Beula Jasmin, Vs Kerala State Finance Enterprises Ltd. (Ksfe Ltd.)

K. v. Anilkumar Vs the General Manager, Southern Railway Head Quarters Office

Anil Kumar C. Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim.P.K Vs the Assistant Engineer