Allowed

L.Devadas, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC18 Mar 2024WP(C)/26659/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, father of a deceased ex-service Health Inspector, challenged a rejection of his Legal Heirship Certificate application by the Tahsildar. The rejection relied on a report indicating the daughter married the fourth respondent, who was later found to be deceased and legally incapable of having a second marriage. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 set aside; Tahsildar directed to reconsider petitioner's application and issue Legal Heirship Certificate within one month.

L.Devadas, Vs the District Collector — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26659 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

L.DEVADAS, MAHALAKSHMI, NEAR KALLIYOOR PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 042.

¶13

4 SUBANNA NAIK, S/O. RAMA NAIK, PALLANKANA HOUSE, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT MANJESHWARAM TALUK OFFICE, KASARAGODE - 671323.

¶14

ADDL. 5 BHAVANI M., AGED 44 YEARS, W/O LATE. SUBBANNA NAIK, NOW RESIDING AT AREMANGILA HOUSE, MAIRE, PERLA, KASARAGOD FROM PALLAKANA HOUSE, PERLA P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671552

¶15

6 JITHIN S.NAIK, AGED 12 YEARS, S/O LATE. SUBBANNA NAIK, NOW RESIDING AT AREMANGILA HOUSE, MAIRE, PERLA, KASARAGOD FROM PALLAKANA HOUSE, PERLA P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER BHAVANI M., AGED 44 YEARS, W/O LATE. SUBBANNA NAIK, NOW RESIDING AT AREMANGILA HOUSE, MAIRE, PERLA, KASARAGOD FROM PALLAKANA HOUSE, PERLA P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671552

¶16

7 NIVED S.NAIK, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O LATE. SUBBANNA NAIK, NOW RESIDING AT AREMANGILA HOUSE, MAIRE, PERLA, KASARAGOD FROM PALLAKANA HOUSE, PERLA P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 26659 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

(Addition respondents 5 to 7 are impleaded as per order dated 18.03.2024 in I.A.1/2024)

¶20

BY ADVS. SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SUKARNAN(K/001572/2021)

¶21

SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN, SRI. P.S.APPU, GP

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C) NO. 26659 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner is stated to be the father of late Beenakumari, who died while in service as a Health Inspector in the Primary Health Care Centre in Thrissur District. He says that, even though his daughter had a love relationship with the fourth respondent, they were not legally married; and therefore, that when she died, he is the only legal heir surviving her, thus being entitled to all monetary benefits, including pensionary payouts and such other.

¶27

The petitioner says that when he, therefore, applied for a Legal Heirship Certificate qua his daughter before the Tahsildar, it has been rejected through Ext.P3, merely saying that the report of the Kalliyoor Village Officer, dated 30.11.2020, indicates that his daughter was married to the fourth respondent. He says that this is wholly untenable because, the fourth respondent is already married and hence could not have already contracted a second one with his daughter; and that, in any event, there is nothing on record to establish that any such marriage subsisted when she died. He thus prays that Ext.P3 be set aside and his application for Legal Heirship Certificate be directed to be allowed by the second respondent – Tahsildar,

¶28

WP(C) NO. 26659 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶31

Pertinently, in response to the afore submissions of the petitioner as made by the learned counsel - Sri.Anil Kumar M.Sivaraman, Sri.Manu Ramachandran appearing for respondents 5 to 7, submitted that the fourth respondent is now no more and that he is, in fact, survived only by his clients, who are his legally wedded wife and children. He contended that, therefore, the fourth respondent could not have married anyone else, including the petitioner's daughter; adding that his clients are not aware if they had any other relationship between themselves.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader – Sri.P.S.Appu, submitted that the Tahsildar has been incapacitated from considering the application of the petitioner because, the enquiry made by the Kalliyoor Village Officer indicates that the petitioner's daughter was married to the fourth respondent. He submitted that, however, in view of the afore developments, if this Court is so inclined, the second respondent - Tahsildar is willing to reconsider the matter, after hearing the petitioner.

¶33

I have examined the above submissions on the touchstone of the various materials on record.

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 26659 OF 2022

¶36

This case certainly presents very peculiar factual scenario.

¶37

On one hand, the Kalliyoor Village Officer is stated to have reported that the petitioner's daughter had married the fourth respondent; while respondents 5 to 7 assert to be his legally wedded wife and children. Pertinently, respondents 5 to 7 also assert that the fourth respondent is no more and that he could not have married the petitioner's daughter legally.

¶38

Indubitably therefore, no controversy now remains in this writ petition because the factum of the marriage of the fourth respondent with the daughter of the petitioner can only be seen to be untenable; or, at the best, a relationship that could have never been sanctified into a validly constituted marriage.

¶39

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P3, with a consequential direction to the second respondent - Tahsildar to reconsider the application of the petitioner and issue appropriate orders thereon, thus leading to the issuance of an appropriate Legal Heirship Certificate subject to all other requirements being satisfied, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

WP(C) NO. 26659 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

I am fixing the time short as afore, because the petitioner says that he is physically challenged senior citizen and completely bedridden, thus being in requirement of urgent monetary resources for his treatment and such other. It is only after the Tahsildar passes the orders in terms of the afore directions, can the petitioner approach the competent Authority for the pensionary benefits to be released to him pursuant to Ext.P4.

¶43

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶44

stu

¶45

WP(C) NO. 26659 OF 2022

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26659/2022

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER, DATED 26/12/2016. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 11/1/2019.

¶50

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14/12/2021.

¶51

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.212/22, DTD. 19/7/2022 FROM THE MEDICAL OFFICER, FHC, THONOORKARA.

¶52

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶53

Exhibit R5(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF JITHIN S. NAIK VIDE. REGISTRATION NO.7237/2011 & REGISTERED ON 15.09.2011 AT KASARAGOD MUNICIPALITY

¶54

Exhibit R5(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF NIVED S. NAIK VIDE. REGISTRATION NO.2792/2020 & REGISTERED ON 20.05.2020 AT KASARAGOD MUNICIPALITY

¶55

Exhibit R5(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD NO.248106771 ISSUED ON 15.12.2022 TO ME BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, MANJESHWARAM

¶56

Exhibit R5(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE REGISTRATION NO.104/2023 AND REGISTERED ON 05.09.2023 AS ISSUED BY THE ENMAKAJE GRAMA PANCHAYAT

L.Devadas, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Devadas, v. the District Collector

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.a.Joseph Vs Official Liquidator,High Court of Kerala

Balan Vs the Official Liquidator

K.v.M.Zakir Vs Canara Bank

K.M. Noushad Hussain Vs State of Kerala

P.R.Bijoykumar Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Tati Construction Private Limited, Vs Registrar, Calicut University