- (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging inaction on the part of the Tehsildar, Rangat, Middle Andaman, in refusing to mutate the names of the petitioners in relation to the disputed properties.
(2.) THE properties, admittedly, belonged to Sushanto Kumar Dey. He purportedly executed a will, which was registered on December 3, 2004, allegedly bequeathing his estate in favour of his three sons. The said Sushanto Kumar Dey died on April, 20, 2005 leaving behind him his six daughters and three sons. His wife is, already, dead. It seems that disputes have developed between the daughters and the sons of the deceased. The daughters applied for mutation of their names in respect of the disputed property. Subsequently, the sons, also, applied for mutation of their names, excluding the names of their sisters, in respect of the selfsame properties on the basis of the said registered will. The Tehsildar considered the said applications and by his order dated November 01, 2011 declined to mutate the names of the heirs and legal representatives in relation to the disputed properties till a competent court of law decides the validity of the purported will. Being aggrieved, the sons have come up with this writ petition. Mr. Bimal Kumar Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners strenuously argues that it is clear from the will that the testator bequeathed his properties in favour of his three sons excluding his daughters. Mr. Das submits that the intention of the testator is clear that he 3 unequivocally bequeathed all his estates to his sons, who are the legatees under the will. Mr. Das submits that it is a registered will and as the genuineness is not disputed in any court of law by the daughters, the Tehsildar should have acted on the basis of the will. The action of the Tehsildar refusing to mutate the names of his clients was not proper. It is clear from the order of the Tehsildar dated November 01, 2011 that all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased participated in the hearing before him. The Tehsildar, by the order impugned, considered the application for mutation of the daughters too. Unfortunately, in the writ petition the daughters have not been made as parties. On that score alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, some of the natural heirs are disputing the will. There are some discrepancies in the will as pointed out by the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar rightly did not propose to interpret the will, but relegated the parties to a competent civil court for decision. I do not think that the Tehsildar, in the facts and circumstances of the case, acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction.
(3.) THEREFORE , the writ petition is dismissed. However, it will be open to the legatees to approach the competent court of law for declaration of their right in relation to the properties-in-dispute on the strength of the will in presence of the other natural heirs.;