Kerala High Court
Sobha vs State Of Kerala on 23 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 26933 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
SOBHAAGED 58 YEARSW/O. SWAMINATHAN, NAMBALA HOUSE,
CHETTIPPADI P.O., MALAPPURAM - 676 319., PIN - 676319
BY ADVS.P.B.SUBRAMANYANP.B.KRISHNANSABU
GEORGEB.ANUSREEMANU VYASAN PETERMEERA P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE TAHSILDARTIRURANGADI, TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI.,
PIN - 676306
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICERNEDUVA, TIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALAPURAM., PIN - 676303
Smt. PREETHA K.K. (SR.G.P)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.26933/2023 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner's late husband - Swaminathan, obtained in partition
property described in item No.2 of Ext.P1 partition deed registered as
document No.1268/2008 of SRO Parapanangadi. The property was
mutated in favour of late Swaminathan and he was also paying tax on the
same. Late Swaminathan died on 4.11.2018 leaving behind as his legal
heirs, his mother and the petitioner herein. The petitioner and late
Swaminathan have no children. Ext.P3 is the legal heirship certificate
issued by the Tahsildar, Tirurangadi following the death of late
Swaminathan.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
mother of late Swaminathan also passed away on 21.5.2021 and after her
death, the entire property should devolve on the petitioner following the
amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as
the 1956 Act), by the provisions of the Hindu Succession (Kerala
Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act,
2015) which introduced sub-clause (c) in Section 15(2) of the 1956 Act
and provided that any property inherited by a female Hindu from her
pre-deceased son shall not, on her death, devolve upon all her heirs but,
only on the heirs of the pre-deceased son. Since the petitioner is the sole
heir of the pre-deceased son, the petitioner is entitled to the property
which devolved on the mother of late Swaminathan, is the submission.
The application filed by the petitioner for effecting mutation in her name
has not been considered and the petitioner has been directed to produce
an order from the Court for effecting mutation.
3. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute that after
the amendment to the 1956 Act by the provisions of the Amendment Act,
2015, the property obtained by a female Hindu from her pre-deceased
son shall devolve on her death, not on her legal heirs, but on the heirs of
the pre-deceased son from whom she inherited the property. The
learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits that the 3 rd respondent
can be directed to consider the matter in terms of the provisions
contained in the Amendment Act, 2015.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader, I am clearly of the opinion that there is
merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
There is no dispute that the property belonging to late Swaminathan
devolved on the petitioner and his late mother by virtue of the provisions
contained in the 1956 Act. On the death of the mother of late
Swaminathan (See Ext.P4 Death Certificate) and by virtue of the
operation of the Amendment Act, 2015 which introduced sub-clause (c)
to Section 15(2) of the Act, 1956, the property which was inherited by the
late mother of late Swaminathan from late Swaminathan will devolve
only upon the heirs of late Swaminathan. Since petitioner appears to be
the sole legal heir of late Swaminathan, I see no reason as to why the
request made by the petitioner for effecting mutation in respect of the
entire extent of property [item No.2 in Ext.P1] should not be accepted.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the 3 rd respondent is directed
to effect mutation of the entire extent of property mentioned as item
No.2 in Ext.P1 document in favour of the petitioner subject to
compliance with usual formalities. Needless to say, the basic tax shall
also be accepted from the petitioner after mutation is effected in her
name.
sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26933/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOC.NO.1268/08 SRO
PARAPANANGADI, DATED 8-05-2008
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICE, NEDUVA, DATED 29-11-2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP
CERTIFICATE (C2-15712/18/K/DIS) ISSUED BY
THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI, DATED 20-04-
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE
(D0071275-2105243) ISSUED BY THE
PARAPPANANGADI MUNICIPALITY, DATED 29-05-
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION THE
REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8-6-2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 9-6-
