JUDGMENT

The limited prayer made by the petitioner before this Court is that the competent respondent be directed to take up Ext.P1 application, preferred by him, in his capacity as an Executor of a Will of the year 2014 in favour of the legatee therein, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader –

Smt.Mable C.Kurian, in response to the afore submissions of Sri.G.Sreekumar Chelur – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Ext.P1 has been preferred by the petitioner only in his capacity as an Executor of a Will and, therefore, a detailed examination will have to be done as to his entitlement to maintain the same. She submitted that, therefore, if this Court is inclined to direct Ext.P1 to be decided, then no declarations may be made in favour of the petitioner and that it be left to the competent Authority to decide upon it in terms of law, after adverting to every applicable legal provision and terms.

3. In reply, Sri.G.Sreekumar Chelur – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Chapter VI of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, delineates the powers of an Executor of a Will; and that Section 307 thereof specifically sanctions power to the Executor or the Administrator to even dispose of the property, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) thereof.

4. The learned counsel submitted that, therefore, it is in the afore background - particularly Section 211, which provides for vesting of the property in the Executor - that his client had preferred Ext.P1. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P1 be directed to be disposed by the competent Authority, without any further delay.

5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is indubitable that this Court cannot speak on the merits of any of the rival contentions of the parties. These matters will have to be considered by the competent Authority at the first instance and it is only based on such opinion/decision can either of the parties thereafter seek a judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Axiomatically, therefore, I am of the firm view that Ext.P1 must be decided by the competent Authority, without any further delay.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the 3rd respondent – Taluk Tahsildar, to take up Ext.P1 application of the petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording him an opportunity of being heard, as also any other person who may be interested; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the legal contentions of the petitioner either; and that they are all left open to be decided by the 3rd respondent appropriately when the afore exercise is completed.