Disposed

C.M.Samuel v. District Collector

Kerala HC3 Jun 2024WP(C)/7764/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to a legal heirship certificate that excluded the petitioner as husband of the deceased and included her mother. The court held the petitioner was a legal heir at death since his remarriage postdated it, set aside the certificate, and directed reconsideration, clarifying property covered by the registered Will devolves under it.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 Legal Heirship Certificate set aside; 2nd respondent directed to reconsider the application per the judgment's findings.

C.M.Samuel Vs District Collector — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7764 OF 2013

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

C.M.SAMUEL, S/O. K.C. MATHEW,
AGED 57 YEARS, THARAMPALLIAYCHANGALIKUZHI,
VAZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM
BY ADV SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, 686 001 2 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE CHANGANASSERY - 686 101.

¶10

3 SOSAMMA JOHN

¶11

W/O.LATE N.J.JOHN, NEDUVILLA VEEDU, CHAMBAKKARA P.O.,
KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM - 686 540.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.A.K.HARIDAS
GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

SRI. VENUGOPAL V (GP)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 7764 OF 2013 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This writ petition has been filed, challenging Ext.P4 Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Changanasserry, determining the legal heirs of late Sujakutty John to be her children Arun Mathew Samuel, Ashitha Susan Samuel and her mother, Sosamma John. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was the legally married husband of late Sujakutty John. It is the case of the petitioner that the name of the petitioner has been excluded from the Legal Heirship Certificate and the mother of late Sujakutty John, who is not a legal heir of late Sujakutty John, has been included as a legal heir of late Sujakutty John. It is submitted that, going by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (which applies to the parties as they are Christians), the petitioner was a legal heir of late Sujakutty John and her mother was not a legal heir.

¶19

Learned Government Pleader refers to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent in this case to point out that late Sujakutty John expired on 25.12.2010. It is submitted that, on 06.09.11, the petitioner remarried and the said marriage was also registered. It is submitted that, it is in such circumstances that, a Legal Heirship Certificate was

¶20

WP(C) NO. 7764 OF 2013 3

¶21

issued showing the children and mother of late Sujakutty John to be her legal heirs. It is pointed out that exclusion of the petitioner was on account of his remarriage.

¶22

The 3^rd respondent (mother of late Sujakutty John) filed a counter affidavit, in which she states that the petitioner and late Sujakutty John were not in good terms at all and late Sujakutty John had, in fact, died on account of various acts of cruelty meted out to her by the petitioner. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.R3(b) complaint filed before the Women's Commission by late Sujakutty John. It is also submitted that late Sujakutty John had executed a registered Will [which is on record as Ext.R3(a)] which shows that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the properties of late Sujakutty John (in terms of the stipulations in the Will). It is submitted that the petitioner cannot, therefore, be aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P4 Legal Heirship Certificate. It is pointed out that, going by the terms of the Will, the 3^rd respondent is also entitled to a share in the properties of late Sujakutty John.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. There is no representation for the 3^rd respondent.

¶24

WP(C) NO. 7764 OF 2013 4

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is right in contending that the Legal Heirship Certificate (namely Ext.P4) cannot be sustained in law. On the date of death of late Sujakutty John, the petitioner was the legally married husband of late Sujakutty John even going by the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. The remarriage of the petitioner was only on 06.09.2011 whereas late Sujakutty John expired on 25.12.2010. Therefore, the petitioner was one of the legal heirs of late Sujakutty John in terms of the provisions contained in the Indian Succession Act.

¶26

Therefore Ext.P4 Legal Heirship Certificate is set aside, with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the application for issuance of Legal Heirship Certificate, having regard to the findings in this judgment. However, the matter does not rest there. It is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent that late Sujakutty John had executed a registered Will, completely excluding the petitioner and making her mother (the 3^rd respondent herein) entitled to a

¶27

WP(C) NO. 7764 OF 2013 5

¶28

share in the properties and other assets mentioned in the Will. It is made clear that the properties of late Sujakutty John (to the extent covered by Ext.R3(a) Will) shall devolve in terms of Ext.R3(a) Will and not in terms of the Legal Heirship Certificate, that may be issued by the 2^nd respondent, in terms of the direction issued by this Court in this judgment.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

GOPINATH P.
JUDGE

¶32

ajt

¶33

WP(C) NO. 7764 OF 2013 6

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7764/2013

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/7/10 IN
WP(CRL)NO.279/10.
EXHIBIT P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/12/12 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10/05/12
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

C.M.Samuel v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M.Samuel v. District Collector

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

Appolo Granties Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Pereira @ Prem Mathew Vs Director General (Asi)

Kannamthanam Vs the Assistant Commissioner-Iii(Assessment)

Jikhil Joseph Vs Dr Thajudin Ahamed v I

M.S.Thaha, Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Mini Vs the District Collector