The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

order dated 4-12-2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent declining

to transfer the sailing vessel in to her name and has sought for

consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to consider her

application for transfer of sailing vessel in to her name.

- 3 -

2. Heard Sri Ajay Prabhu M., learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri B.V.Krishna, learned Additional

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the

subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as

follows:-

The petitioner claims to be a resident of Sirlapadpu,

Kulshekara, Mangalore and belongs to Hindu religion. The

religion is emphasized for the fact that she gets married to one

Volli Mohammed Aslam, a man belonging to different religion

under a Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 8-06-2012. A certificate

of such marriage is also appended to the petition. The husband

of the petitioner owned a sailing vessel and was into the

business of marine supplies being a partner in Hydraulic Mobile

Crane with one Mohammed Shariff. It is the claim of the

petitioner that since the date of marriage i.e., 8-06-2012 she

was residing with her husband and the husband was not

allowed in the house of his parents as he married the petitioner

who is from a different religion. On 20-06-2021 the husband of

- 4 -

the petitioner dies succumbing to COVID-19. A death

certificate to that effect is also appended to the petition. After

the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner made

an application before the concerned authority for transfer of

ownership of the crane and the same was transferred to the

name of the petitioner based upon no objection given by the

partner Mohammed Shariff. Every other property belonging to

the husband of the petitioner was transferred in the name of

the petitioner.

4. The petitioner then makes an application to transfer

the sailing vessel owned by her husband which was duly

registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The

petitioner was not allowed such transfer on account of the son

of one of the sisters of the deceased husband had submitted a

representation to the registering authority in the name of one

Volli Obeidulla aged 85 years objecting to any such transfer.

The 2^nd respondent/competent authority, who was to effect

such transfer, rejected the transfer in terms of the impugned

order 04-12-2021 on the ground that there were objections for

- 5 -

transfer of the said vessel. It is this rejection that drives the

petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that on the strength of marriage certificate of the

petitioner with the deceased all the other properties that were

held in the name of the deceased have been transferred in

favour of the petitioner. It is only this vessel that was declined

to be transferred on an imaginary objection of one Volli

Obeidulla, father of the deceased. He would contend that the

subject vessel also is to be transferred in the name of the

petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government

Advocate representing the respondents who has filed his

statement of objections would contend that all other properties

having been transferred is of no avail as there was no objection

from any quarter during those transfers. But, when the transfer

was sought for the subject vessel, Volli Obeidulla, the father of

the deceased had objected to the same contending that it

should belong to the family and not to anybody else. It is

- 6 -

because of this the Competent Authority had directed that legal

heirship be decided before the competent Court of law and then

only a transfer could be made. He would contend that no fault

can be found with the impugned order.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned cou