The High Court of Karnataka declined to grant leave since the writ petition was filed under Art. 226 & 227 to quash a death registration order, holding the petitioner lacked locus standi and doubting the validity of the apprehension regarding the death date.
Application for indulgence declined; Writ Petition disposed off.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.36999 OF 2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S LINCOLN HELIOS (INDIA) LIMITED., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMAPANIES ACT HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT DEVANAHALLI ROAD, OFF OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 049. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR SANDIP SEN. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANU K, ADVOCATE AND SRI. AJAY J N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 BOTH TOGETHER R/AT LAKKONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114.
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1-R3; SRI. C.G. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.23.11.2011 IN CRL. MISC. 268/2011 AS PER ANNX-A AND QUASH THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DT.24.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TAHASILDAR, VIDE ANNX-B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARINGB GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 23.11.2011 handed by JMFC, Hoskote in
Crl.Misc.No.268/2011; the operative portion of the order made under of Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereafter ‘1969 Act’) reads as under:
“Application is allowed.
The respondent is hereby directed to register the date of death of Narayanappa S/o Late Thoti Chennarayappa R/o Lakkondahalli Village,
3
Hosakote Taluk, as on 12-02-1979 in the register of Birth and Deaths maintained by the respondent under Section 13(3) of registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 on payment of prescribed fee.”
are represented by the learned HCGP Sri.Sridhar Hegde and
that, respondent No.4 is represented by learned counsel Sri.C.G.Gopalaswamy; however, respondent No.5 despite service of notice has chosen to remain unrepresented; learned HCGP stoutly opposes the Writ Petition contending that the petitioner not being a party to the impugned order, has no locus standi to lay a challenge thereto; that even otherwise, the petitioner cannot be construed as a party aggrieved; so contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
petitioner and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) Ordinarily under the scheme of 1969 Act, births
and deaths need to be reported to the jurisdictional Registrars; the Act prescribes certain timelines for making such reports; that is for the purpose of statistical data
4
presumable for formulating several policies of the government; when the report as to birth and death is not made within the prescribed timelines, the provisions of Section 13 of the Act provide a remedy for getting the registration of birth or death, belatedly too; pursuant to the order in question, the death of one Mr.Narayanappa has been so registered as having taken place on 12.2.1979. Be this as it may.
(b) The apprehension of the petitioner that private respondents may take the undue advantage of registration of death of said Narayanappa, especially, the date mentioned in the Death Certificate, the and thereby likely to strengthen their suit for declaration in O.S.No.685/2013 in which the title to subject property is involved, is too farfetched, to say the least; after the so called date of death i.e., 12th February 1979, the said Narayanappa had participated in the occupancy proceedings u/s 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and deposed as a witness itself; this itself will dispel the apprehension of the petitioner.
5
(c) Above apart, the question whether a certain
person was alive or dead as on a particular date, has to be decided by adducing substantive evidence de hors the Death Certificate in the suit proceedings; there is no provision in the Act which attaches any significant presumptive value to the contents of Death Certificate in question; if the Parliament intended that the Certificates should have presumptive value as against third persons too, a provision to that effect would have been made; however, such a provision is conspicuously absent; that being the position, petitioner can take full advantage of the same.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
cbc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petitioner can challenge an order registering a death via Crl. Misc. under Section 13(3) of the 1969 Act when not a party to said order.
Whether a death certificate under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act has presumptive value affecting third persons in civil suit proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Lincoln Helios (India) Limited
The State of Karnataka
The Tahasildar, Hoskote Taluk
N Nagaraja
L N Krishnappa
Krishna S. Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court