High Court Kerala High Court

Sheeba vs Tahsildar on 19 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sheeba vs Tahsildar on 19 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 20506 of 2006(N)


1. SHEEBA, W/O.LATE SURESH, AGED 36 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 62 ,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :19/02/2007

 O R D E R
               THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J

                       -------------------------------------------

                         W.P(C).No.20506 OF 2006

                       -------------------------------------------

               Dated this the 19th day of February, 2007




                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the widow and the third respondent is the

father of deceased R.Suresh, who was employed with the Kerala

State Electricity Board. The first respondent Tahsildar issued

Ext.P3 heirship certificate showing the petitioner and the third

respondent as heirs of late Suresh. This is under challenge by

the widow. According to her, she is the only surviving class I

heir of Suresh under the Hindu Succession Act, his mother

having predeceased him. Learned counsel appearing for the

third respondent contends that though the third respondent, the

father of Suresh, is only a class II heir, Ext.P3 certificate cannot

be found fault with because the Tahsildar was justified in

including the father of the deceased also as an heir since the said

person is an heir, at least a class II heir. So much so, Ext.P3 may

be gospel truth. But the fact remains that priority in terms of the

provisions of the Hindu Succession Act enjoins that class I heirs

WPC.20506/06

Page numbers

will inherit in preference to class II heirs, while there would be

equal distribution among class I heirs and in their absence,

among the class II heirs. So much so, though the father is an

heir in class II, since the petitioner, the widow, is admittedly

alive, she alone will succeed to the testator of late Suresh. The

right of parties to succession may be an issue for the civil courts

to decide. But Ext.P3, as it stands, would only create confusion

and lead to much undesired litigation.

Under such circumstances, it is hereby directed that

though Ext.P3 shows the third respondent as also a heir, it shall

be treated as one issued recognising the petitioner as the sole

heir at law, entitled to inherit the estate of late R.Suresh in

preference to the third respondent, father. With this

declaration, this writ petition is disposed of.

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Judge

kkb.