JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P10 and quash the same.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a legal heirship certificate to the petitioners without insisting upon a Marriage Certificate under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 and further, to rely upon Ext.P1 marriage certificate issued under the customary law, within a time frame deemed fit by this Honourable Court.

iii. Grant such other and further reliefs which are just and reasonable under the nature and circumstances of the case.

2. As evident by Ext.P5, one Yuri R.S., died on

29.11.2019. According to the 1st petitioner, she is the wife of Yuri R.S. and the 2nd petitioner is their son. Petitioners are aggrieved by the failure on the part of the 2nd respondent to issue a legal heir certificate, despite furnishing a marriage certificate of the 1st petitioner with the deceased Yuri R.S., which is issued by Attukal Bhagavathy Temple. The respondents insist that a marriage certificate under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, is required for issuing the legal heir certificate.

3. Today, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioners concedes that the 2nd respondent issued a legal heir certificate of the deceased showing only the name of the 2nd petitioner. The Government Pleader submitted that there is a difference in the name of the deceased husband of the 1st petitioner in Ext.P1 when compared to other documents produced by her. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that he will produce 'one and the same certificate' from the 3rd respondent - Village Officer and he will approach the 3rd respondent for the same and there may be a direction to the Village Officer to issue such a certificate after conducting an enquiry. The Government Pleader submitted that the 2nd respondent was not able issue a legal heir certificate because of this difference in the name.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, according to me, there can be a direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry regarding the claim of the 1st petitioner and thereafter issue a 'one and the same certificate' in accordance to law. Based on the same, the 2nd respondent can take appropriate steps. The 1st petitioner submitted that she married R.S. Vijayakumar, as evident by Ext.P1 marriage certificate, on 27.01.2004. According to the 1st petitioner, 2nd petitioner is the son in the wedlock between the 1st petitioner and the deceased R.S. Vijayakumar, who is also known as R.S.Yuri. In such situation, the legal heir certificate issued in the name of the 2nd petitioner alone is not correct.

5. I think an enquiry can be conducted by the 3rd respondent about the difference of name in Ext.P1 and in the other documents and thereafter, submit a report before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent can take appropriate steps in accordance to law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with following directions:

1. The 3rd respondent will conduct a local enquiry and find out the genuineness of Ext.P1 marriage certificate. The 3rd respondent can consult the Village Officer, Attipra also, if necessary. The above enquiry should be completed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 3rd respondent will submit a report after conducting the enquiry to the Tahsildar within three weeks. After enquiry, if the 3rd respondent is convinced that the person mentioned in Ext.P1 is the husband of the 1st petitioner, necessary certificate will be issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioners and the same will also be produced before the 2nd respondent for appropriate action.

2. The 2nd respondent will take appropriate steps based on the enquiry report of the 3rd respondent in accordance t