A teacher is not expected to submit a frivolous writ petition of this sort, motivated by personal hatred is upheld by the Kerala High Court in the case of Vivekanandan K. S. v. Circle Inspector of Police (WP(C). No. 1595 of 2021(Y)) through Justice V.G. Arun.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The present petition asked the court to direct the police to look into the involvement of respondents 2 to 7 in the strange death of one Bhargavi, the petitioner’s paternal aunt. The petitioner’s eviction from his home and the transfer of his aunt’s estate to respondents 2 to 5 are the petitioner’s motivations for initiating the writ petition, according to the document.
The petitioner’s aunt Bhargavi passed away on November 15, 2019. The petitioner asked the police to look into Bhargavi’s death because they thought there might have been foul play involved, but their inquiry turned up nothing. In order to direct police officials to launch an inquiry into respondents 2 to 7’s involvement in the mysterious death, the petitioner had come before this Court.
Bhargavi was a notable spinster who possessed possessions like real estate and financial reserves. She had signed a Will naming the petitioner as the beneficiary of all of her assets. However, a later will left the assets in the names of responders 2 to 5. The petitioner was ejected from the home at this point due to family conflict, and on October 22, 2003, the petitioner’s father and Bhargavi signed a partition deed.
The petitioner, who was upset over being kicked out of his parents’ home, filed a partition lawsuit, naming his parents, aunt Bhargavi, and siblings as defendants. Later, on January 12, 2011, Bhargavi signed a new will in which she left her bank accounts’ full balances to the petitioner’s sisters. Bhargavi, according to the petitioner, had signed his last two wills under the influence of his sisters’ coercion and was considering signing a new, last will that would make him the only legatee. In the meantime, Bhargavi passed away on November 15, 2011, at 7:30 am, which the petitioner claims occurred inexplicably.
The petitioner claimed that Bhargavi’s body was hastily burned at the Shanthikavadam Gas Crematorium at 12:55 pm on the same day in an effort to thwart an investigation into her death.
The Court believed that the removal of the petitioner from his home and the transfer of his deceased aunt’s assets to respondents 2 to 5 were the driving forces behind the filing of the writ case. Bhargavi would have been 90 years old when she passed away because she was 81 years old as of the date the will was executed. Therefore, the Court relied on the inference that Bhargavi had died of natural causes in the lack of unambiguous and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Since no additional unusual circumstances have been revealed in the writ petition, other than the claim that Bhargavi was cremated at the Santhikavadam Gas Crematorium, which is 30 kilometres from the scene of her death. Last but not least, the Court forcefully remarked that the petitioner claimed to be a teacher, noting that the petitioner’s behaviour was, to put it mildly, repugnant and that a teacher is not expected to submit a frivolous writ petition of this sort, motivated by personal hatred.
Accordingly, the present petition was dismissed by the Court.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NISHTHA GARHWAL