IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 601 of 2009 ----------------------------- (AS.NO.47/2004 OF III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. OP. (SUCCESSION) NO.12/2002 OF SUB COURT,ATTINGAL) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMEELA BEEVI, PAVARA VEEDU, KURAKKANNI DESOM, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.M.R.RAJESH, SMT.A.K.PREETHA, MR.K.M.ALEXANDER. RESPONDENT/(APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS): ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M. NAZEELA BEEVI, W/O. ABDUL HAMEED, APT, BLOCK 168, STIRLING ROAD, 12-1191, SINGAPORE. 2. NAJEENA BEEVI, D/O. ABDUL HAMEED, APT BLOCK 163, STIRLING ROAD, 12-1191, SINGAPORE. 3. HAMEEM FAISAL, S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, APT BLOCK 163, STRLING ROAD, 12-1191, SINGAPORE. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.V.SURESH, MR.G.SUDHEER. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 601 of 2009 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Aggrieved by the remand order passed by the III Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S. No.47 of 2004, the respondent before the court below has come up in revision. 2. The respondents herein filed O.P. No.12 of 2002 for issuing succession certificate to receive A schedule debts and securities and also to collect the articles kept in B schedule bank locker, which belong to the deceased Abdul Hameed. They claimed themselves to be the wife and children of the deceased. The petitioner herein resisted the petition, contending that the claim made by the respondents was not correct and the 1st respondent is not the legally wedded wife and respondents 2 and 3 are not the legitimate children of the deceased. The trial court felt that complicated issues arose for consideration which have to be resolved in a regular suit and cannot be dealt with in a summary manner. So, the petition was dismissed. 3. The matter was carried in appeal as A.S. No. 47 of CRP 601/09 2 2004 before the III Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The lower appellate court found that the court below was not justified in refusing to go into the merit of the petition and decide the prima facie right one of the parties to the succession certificate. The lower appellate court also found that even assuming that there is a dispute regarding the legal heirs, it is possible to issue succession certificate as an interim measures and if any of the person is aggrieved, he can seek remedy by filing a regular suit. On this ground, the matter was remanded for enquiry by the trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner takes objection to the fact that the observations made by the appellate court that it is possible to issue succession certificate as an interim measure will prejudice his case before the trial court. The observations referred to in the judgment of the lower appellate court, according to the learned counsel, were harm to the petitioner. 5. It may also be true that a bona fide dispute CRP 601/09 3 regrading the status of the person who applied for succession certificate. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations made in the judgment of the lower appellate court may influence the lower court in the proceeding. That needs to be clarified. 6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the trial court shall dispose of the petition untrammeled by any of the observations made in the judgment of the appellate court. It is also made clear that if an amendment application is filed, that shall also be considered by the trial court. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.