Jurisdiction for issuing a legal heirship certificate is determined by the residence of the deceased, not the applicants.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are children of late Mary Verghese and Ivan John Verghese. The petitioners' mother Mary Verghese had resided in Chennai for a considerable period of time and had shifted her residence to Aluva during the Covid 19 pandemic as she was unable to manage her affairs on her own. After shifting from Chennai in 2021, the petitioners' mother was residing at 'Chacko Homes', an old age home near U.C.College, Aluva. While so, the petitioners' mother expired on 22.10.2022. During her lifetime, Mary Verghese had executed Ext.P3 Will bequeathing all her assets in favour of the petitioners. In terms of the Will, the petitioners entered into Ext.P4 family arrangement and later submitted Ext.P5 application for issuance of legal heirship certificate. The 2^nd respondent rejected the application on the ground that the applicants are not residing within the jurisdiction of the Aluva Taluk Office. The same stand is adopted by the 3^rd respondent also. Hence, this writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent to issue the legal heirship certificate applied for.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2^nd respondent is asking for an impossibility by rejecting the application for legal heirship certificate on the premise that the applicants are not residing within the limits of the Aluva Taluk Office. Relying on the judgment of this Court Anna Jacob and Others v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine Ker 2433] dated 16.04.2025 in W.P.(C).No.5045 of 2025, it is contended that in cases where the deceased was residing in Kerala and the children, who are the applicants, are residing abroad or outside Kerala, the application for legal heirship certificate is to be submitted at the Taluk Office, within the limits of which the deceased had been residing. Here, the 1^st petitioner is a permanent resident of Hyderabad, the 2nd petitioner is residing in the USA and the 3rd petitioner, in Canada. Therefore, it is impossible for the petitioners to obtain legal heirship certificate from the authorities at their place of residence.

3. I heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. Having carefully perused the judgment of this Court, Anna Jacob (supra) rendered under identical circumstances, I am in respectful agreement with the findings therein. Paragraphs 12 to 14, of the judgment, being contextually relevant, are extracted hereunder;

“12. It would be preposterous to assume that the jurisdictional Revenue Department, in the case of a legal heirship certificate, is the place where the applicants are residing. If that be the case, as the petitioners are residing in Australia, they would have to submit the application for the legal heirship certificate of their mother in Australia, even though the deceased was an Indian citizen and was residing in Aluva from 2011-2023 i.e., till her death.

13. Paragraph 213 of the Village Manual permits persons residing abroad to submit an application before the Village Officer where they permanently resided for more than six months.

14. In the instant case, the petitioners have applied for a legal heirship certificate of their mother (deceased), who was admittedly residing within the jurisdiction of the respondents 2 and 3 for more than six months. In cases of such nature, it is the place of the deceased, and not that of the applicants, that has to be looked into for deciding the jurisdiction of the Revenue Department. Therefore, I am of the definite view that, as the deceased was residing within the jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent for more than a decade, it is for 2^nd respondent to issue the legal heirship certificate. However, the petitioners would have to comply with the procedure of enquiry contemplated under paragraph 215 of the Village Manual. After conducting the enquiry, the 2^nd respondent is