PRAMEELAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment impugned in this appeal is the one dtd. 15/12/2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.16361/2020. In the writ petition afore-referred, the petitioner sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus, compelling the 2nd respondent District Collector and respondents 3 to 5, being the authorities under him, to issue a Legal Heirship Certificate to the petitioner, in her status as the adopted daughter of deceased Gopalan. Pointing out the absence of a certificate of adoption, or in the alternative, a declaration from a competent civil court, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, refusing the reliefs sought for.

(2.) Heard Sri.S.Balachandran (Kulasekharam), learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the petitioner's mother died when she was aged two years and she lost her father at the age of 4 years. Thereafter, she was adopted by one Gopalan K. The petitioner was residing with him and when she attained the age of 18 years, the said Gopalan conducted her marriage with his sister's son, by name Thankaraj. Gopalan died on 11/10/2019, while serving as a part time sweeper in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, GST, Karamana. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 application seeking compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. However, the Legal Heirship Certificate sought for was rejected by the Tahsildar. Although an appeal was carried before the Sub-Collector, the same was also dismissed vide Ext.P2 order, which was one passed on the advice of the District Collector. Learned counsel specifically pointed out that, deceased Gopalan had nominated the petitioner vide Ext.P4 to receive the death cum retirement gratuity, acknowledging the petitioner as his step daughter. As per Ext.P5 settlement deed, Gopalan settled certain items of properties on the petitioner and her husband. Again, Ext.P6 consent letter was issued by Gopalan to the Manager of Indian Bank, Perumpazhoor branch, stating that the petitioner is his adopted daughter and constituting her as his nominee in respect of the account maintained with that bank. Finally, learned counsel emphasized on Ext.P7 registered Will executed by the said Gopalan recognizing the petitioner as his adopted daughter and bequeathing on her the right to realize all service benefits, pursuant to his death. It was argued that the afore-referred documents were not considered by the learned Single Judge, while rejecting his prayer in the writ petition by virtue of impugned judgment. It was further argued that, Gopalan could not have adopted the petitioner in terms of Sec. 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, since, the petitioner is a christian by religion, wherefore, it is futile for the respondent authorities to insist for a certificate of adoption in terms of the said Act. There was no law enabling an adoption of a christian adoptive daughter by a hindu adoptive parent and, therefore, insistence of proof of a valid and legal adoption is an impossibility in itself. On such premise learned counsel would seek to set aside the impugned judgment and allow the prayer for issuance of a Legal Heirship Certificate.