IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 301 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3747/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------ OMANA, HARI MANDIRAM, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SINDHU.T.O., W/O.LATE SIVAPRASAD, AGED 32, SHAJI BHAVAN, NEDUMANCAVU P.O, KOLLAM-691 509. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOTTARAKARA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PUNALUR. R1 BY ADV. MR.BHAGAVAT SINGH R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.301/2010 in W.P.(C) No. 3747 of 2010 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This review petition is filed at the instance of the third respondent in the writ petition who did not contest the proceedings in spite of receipt of notice. It is explained that there was some omission in filing vakalath. 2. What is involved is only issuance of a legal heirship certificate. The review petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The writ petitioner is the wife who requested for issuance of legal heirship certificate. This Court has only directed the first respondent in the writ petition to issue the legal heirship certificate showing the names of legal heirs including the writ petitioner, the third respondent and the minor son Sabari. 3. What is contended for by the review petitioner is that the deceased has a brother whose name has also to be included as legal heir of the deceased. The parties are Hindus and the matter is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The widow, son/daughter and the mother alone are Class I legal heirs. This legal position therefore goes against the contentions of the review petitioner mother that the brother of RP 301 /2010 2 the deceased is also liable to be included in the legal heirship certificate. In support of the argument raised by the the review petitioner, learned counsel for the review petitioner points out that the deceased Sivaprasad got the job as a dependent of his father. Now that Sivaprasad is no more, his brother will get a right for appointment under the dying in harness scheme, plainly the said contention cannot be accepted. Merely because the deceased obtained a job as his father died in harness, such a claim to be included as a legal heir in the certificate cannot be accepted. Evidently all the legal heirs of the deceased father of late Shri Sivaprasad had consented for his appointment. That will not make the brother Manikandan, a legal heir of the deceased Sivaprasad. In that view of the matter also, I find no apparent error in the judgment rendered. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/