IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33806 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.T.VARKEY, S/O.THOMAS, KAREELAKULAM VEEDU, EDAPPALAYAM,ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU S. SRI.C.SINOY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM PO, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-689 695. 2. VASANTHA KUMARI, TRAVANCORE RUBBER & TEA COMPANY QUARTERS, ANACHADI ESTATE, KAZHUTHURUTHY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-689 695. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.33806 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the father of late Sri.Toms Varkey. 2. It is stated that initially when an application was made by the petitioner for a legal heirship certificate, 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 certificate, showing the names of second respondent and her two children also as the legal heirs of the deceased. It is stated that petitioner challenged Ext.P1 before this Court by filing O.P.1298/2002. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing consideration of a representation made by the petitioner objecting to Ext.P1. Judgment also shows that in order to enable such reconsideration, Ext.P1 was quashed. 3. Petitioner submits that thereafter the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P5 order was passed leaving it open to the parties to make a fresh application to the first respondent for obtaining legal heirship certificate. 4. Accordingly, applications were made and finally Ext.P6 order has now been passed by the first respondent W.P (C) No.33806 of 2010 2 stating that the two minor children of the deceased alone are the legal heirs. It is challenging Ext.P6, the writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "i) To call for the records leading to the petitioner's Application for Legal Heirship Certificate of late Sri.Toms Varkey from the 1st respondent and quash Ext.P6. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to issue a Legal Heirship Certificate of the petitioner's son late Sri.Toms Varkey in favour of the petitioner and his wife Akkamma as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Government orders within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court. iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get a Legal Heirship Certificate of the petitioner's son late Sri.Toms Varkey in favour of the petitioner and his wife Akkamma as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Government Orders. iv) To declare that the 2nd respondent is not the legal heir of the petitioner's son Sri.Toms Varkey and she is not entitled for a Legal Heirship Certificate from the 1st respondent as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Government Orders." 5. In my view, essentially what is required for granting the prayers in the writ petition, is a decision on W.P (C) No.33806 of 2010 3 the status of the second respondent and the children. This necessarily requires adjudication of facts and appreciation of evidence which is impermissible in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to get his rights adjudicated before the Civil Court, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma