JUDGMENT

The petitioner's mother-in-law Lakshmi Anandan expired on

19.02.2007 at Karnataka. Petitioner's husband expired on 27.07.2013. According to the petitioner, herself, her son and sister-in-law are now permanently residing in the State of Maharashtra and being so, they are not in a position to look after the property of deceased Lakshmi Anandan described in Ext.P1 partition deed situated in Thalassery Taluk and propose to dispose of the property by way of sale. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, the Tahsildar, Thalassery, with an application dated 05.10.2016 for obtaining legal heirship certificate of deceased Lakshmi Anandan. However, the 3rd respondent rejected her request as per Ext.P5 order stating that, neither the deceased nor the petitioner, her son or her sister-in-law whose names mentioned in the application are permanently residing within the territory of Thalassery Taluk and therefore, the legal heirs of deceased Lakshmi Anandan cannot be determined from that office. It is also stated therein that the petitioner could approach the Civil Court for obtaining Succession Certificate. Ext.P5 order is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to the 3rd respondent to issue legal heirship certificate as per her application dated 05.10.2016.

2. According to the petitioner, no proper enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent before rejecting the application for legal heirship certificate and Ext.P1 partition deed would show that the deceased Lakshmi Anandan was permanently residing in Thalassery Taluk. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the application for the legal heirship certificate has been rejected after conducting proper enquiry through the Village Officer, Panniyannur and the enquiry revealed that, neither the deceased nor her heirs were permanent residents of Thalassery Taluk. It is further stated that the legal heirship certificate is issued for the purpose of financial transactions limited upto Rs.1 lakh only and the purpose shown in the application is for property transaction which crosses the said limit. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 partition deed would show that Lakshmi Anandan was permanently residing at the address in Thalassery Taluk and the 3rd respondent did not take into consideration the said document while rejecting the application for legal heirship certificate. The petitioner contends that the reasons stated in Ext.P5 for rejecting the application for legal heirship certificate are erroneous and unsustainable in law. She also relied on the decision of this Court reported in Vishalakshi v. Bank of India [2006 (2) KLT 488] wherein it has been held that, a Succession Certificate can be applied for only in respect of debts and securities and cannot be granted in respect of immovable property and therefore, the petitioner cannot be relegated to Civil Court particularly when there is no dispute in between the heirs.

6. Usually, an heirship certificate serves to identify the relationship of the heirs to the deceased person.Clause 261 of the Kerala Village Manual and G.O.(MS)No.359/67/RD dated 10.08.1967 deal with issuance of heirship certificate. Clause 261 of the Manual provides that the heirs of a deceased person shall produce heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar for receiving the savings deposited by the deceased with the Government or other institutions or other eligible amounts due to the deceased from the Government or other institutions.

7. G.O.(MS)No.359/67/RD dated 10.08.1967 deals with Standing Orders on issuance of certificates and under the head 'Heirship Certificates', it provides that, under the provisions of the Kerala Financial Code, Volume 1, pay, leave salary and other emoluments due to and claimed on behalf of a deceased Government servant can be paid without the production of t