JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he, along with his two siblings, had inherited the property involved in this case from his parents, who had left Ext.P1 joint Will. He says that, however, when he presented the said Will before the third respondent - Tahsildar for transfer of Registry of the properties in his and his siblings' names, it has been refused to be acted upon, saying that the property has not been properly shown to be divided and hence that the said Authority is incapacitated from acting upon its terms.

2. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on the afore lines, I had directed him to produce a sketch showing the demarcation of the properties between the legal heirs. The same has been placed on record, along with the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 17.05.2022.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Mable C.Kurian, however, submitted that the Will does not say in what manner the property has to be divided among the three sharers and therefore, that the Tahsildar cannot act upon the application of the petitioner alone. She, however, added, to a pointed question from this Court, that a third party appears to be involved, but that unless the division of properties are specifically made, transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioner as asked for by him cannot be done.

4. From the afore stand adopted by the learned Senior Government Pleader, it is clear that though the Tahsildar does not stand in the way of the transfer of Registry of the property in favour of the petitioner, he says that he is unable to do so because the same has not been properly divided among him and his two siblings.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner - Sri.Joju Kynady, affirms that there is no dispute between his client and two siblings and that they had agreed to the demarcation of the property as has been done through Ext.P7 sketch. He added that since no one has disputed this, there would be no prejudice to any person if Ext.P7 is acted upon by the Tahsildar.

6. I must say that I find some force in the afore submissions of Sri.Joju Kynady because, until a third party raises any claim over the property in question, the co-owners can certainly agree to have its portions divided among themselves in the manner as they require. There does not appear to be any legal impediment in this because Ext.P1 Will makes no contrary provision.

7. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the third respondent to hear the petitioner, as also his siblings and if all the three agree, that the transfer of Registry of the property covered by Ext.P1 be done in the manner as shown in Ext.P7. Necessary action in this regard shall be completed by the said Authority, after verifying whether there are any third party interests. If no such interests are attracted, then the afore action shall be completed as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that the afore action will be completed by the third respondent at the sole risk and responsibility of the petitioner and his siblings; and that if there is any claim brought over the property in future, the said Authority shall stand fully indemnified from its consequences, including litigation.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6950/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF WILL DATED 26/04/2014 HAVING WILL NO.45/III/14.

Exhibit P2 DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 19/11/2017 OF MARY KUTTY PHILIP ISSUED BY HOSPITAL.

Exhibit P3 DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 15/02/2019 OF K.S.PHILIP ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH.

Exhibit P4 PETITION DATED 11/01/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 27/04/2021 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF K.S. PHILIP.

Exhibit P6 LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 27/04/2021 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MARY KUTTY.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH DEMARCATING THE BOUNDARIES AS PER THE BOUNDARIES AS PER THE SCHEDULES IN WILL DATED 26.04.20