Allowed

Manoj Mavunkal v. Tahsildar (Land Records)

Kerala HC19 Jan 2022RP/51/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a review petition regarding a writ concerning the enforcement of a will. The court clarified the relationship of a petitioner as the testator's nephew and directed the Tahsildar to act upon the will without requiring an Heirship Certificate, with risks borne by the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the review petition, clarified the 2nd petitioner's relationship as the testator's nephew, and directed the Tahsildar to act on the will without an Heirship Certificate, to be completed within

Manoj Mavunkal Vs Tahsildar (Land Records) — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 29TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 51 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28638/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶7

KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER:

¶9

1 MANOJ MAVUNKAL AGED 52 YEARS S/O. RADHA, MAVUNKAL VEEDU, VETTAKKAL, ANDAKKARANAZHI, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 686 607.

¶10

2 RAMESH AGED 58 YEARS S/O. A.R PURUSHOTHAMAN, DEEPTHI, CHATHANGAD ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM 682 025. 3 PRASANTH REGHUVARAN, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. REGHUVARAN, PREETHI, VYLOPPILLY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM 682 025. BY ADVS. S.ABHILASH ANJANA KANNATH T.S.SREEKUTTY RENUKA VENU FATHIMA MOHAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNOOR, ERNAKULAM 682 312. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM 682 041. SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN - SR GP

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

RP NO.51/2022 IN WP(C) 28638/2021

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition, seeking review of the judgment

¶18

dated 17.12.2021, has been filed by the petitioners saying that certain errors have kept therein on account of the mistakes in the submissions made at the Bar.

¶19

Smt.Anjana Kannath, learned counsel appearing

¶20

for the petitioners, submitted that due to an

¶21

inadvertent omission, the status of the 2^nd petitioner was said to be the nephew of the testator's wife, while he is, in fact, the testator's nephew. She then pointed out that since the 1^st petitioner will not come within the purview of the Legal Heirship Certificate, even if it is to be obtained, no purpose would be served in her client attempting to do so; and supplemented this by saying that, as per the applicable Rules, such a certificate is not necessary to be produced before the Tahsildar for the purpose of enforcement of Ext.P1 Will produced along with the writ petition.

¶22

¶23

RP NO.51/2022 IN WP(C) 28638/2021

¶24

Smt.Mable C.Kurian, learned Senior Government

¶25

Pleader, submitted that, as has been recorded in the judgment, the Tahsildar is incapacitated from acting upon Ext.P1 Will because it is not registered and the authenticity of the same cannot be ascertained by him.

¶26

Even when I hear the learned Senior

¶27

Government Pleader as afore, as rightly stated by Smt.Anjana Kannath, since the 1^st petitioner will

¶28

never come within the purview of an 'heir' of the

¶29

testator, it is unlikely that he will be included in

¶30

the Heirship Certificate, even if it is to be

¶31

obtained by the petitioners. That apart, as correctly contended by the petitioners, there is no provision in law which mandate that an Heirship Certificate should be produced for the purpose of an uncontested Will being put into operation.

¶32

In the afore circumstances, I allow this review petition, clarifying that relationship of the 2^nd petitioner will be construed to be the nephew of the

¶33

¶34

RP NO.51/2022 IN WP(C) 28638/2021

¶35

testator and making it clear that production of the Heirship Certificate would not be necessary for the purpose of the Tahsildar acting upon Ext.P1 Will.

¶36

However, it is reiteratingly made clear that the Tahsildar will act upon Ext.P1 Will based on the assertions and the risk of the petitioners and should any claim be brought upon the property in future by any person, they alone will be responsible and the said Authority will remain completely indemnified and kept away from harm in any manner whatsoever, including to answer any litigations or legal claims.

¶37

The Tahsildar is thus directed to act upon Ext.P1 Will at the risk of the petitioners and to complete the proceedings as requested by them, as

¶38

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶41

MC/19.1

¶42

RP NO.51/2022 IN WP(C) 28638/2021

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF RP 51/2022

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶46

Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C0 NO. 28638/2021 DATED 17-12-2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Manoj Mavunkal v. Tahsildar (Land Records)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Mavunkal v. Tahsildar (Land Records)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.V. Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Rajamani Vs the Tahsildar

Sharafudeen Vs the Special Tahsildar

Village Officer Vs Gem Farm

Muhammed Asharaf Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Dr.P.S.Thaha Vs District Collector, Thiruvananhapuram