Smt. Manjula Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44058 RFA No. 2338 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2338 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MANJULA, WIFE OF B.SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT 282/B, GIRIJA NILAYA, 8^TH C MAIN ROAD, MILK COLONY, BENGALURU, PINCODE - 560 055.

¶9

NOW PRESENTLY, RESIDING AT FLAT NOJ-304, THIRD FLOOR, J BLOCK, PREMIER GRUHALAKSHMI APARTMENT, S.M.ROAD, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 015.

¶10

Digitally signed by AASEEFA 2. KUM.TEJASWINI, PARVEEN DAUGHTER OF B.SRINIVASA, Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT 282/B, COURT OF GIRIJA NILAYA, 8TH C MAIN ROAD, KARNATAKA MILK COLONY, BENGALURU, PINCODE - 560 055.

¶11

NOW PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NOJ-304, THIRD FLOOR, J BLOCK, PREMIER GRUHALAKSHMI APARTMENT, S.M.ROAD, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 015.

¶12

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PUNITH C.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44058 RFA No. 2338 of 2025

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, BRHUAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION BUILDING, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU, PINCODE - 560 055.

¶17

THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATHS, BRHUAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION BUILDING, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU, PINCODE - 560 002.

¶18

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BENGALURU, PINCODE-560 010.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. LAVANYA H.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R3)

¶21

THIS RFA FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC , AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.2696/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:44058 RFA No. 2338 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2696/2019 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.07.2020 passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs against the respondents for declaration, mandatory injunction and other reliefs was dismissed by the trial Court.

¶29

Though the appeal is posted for admission, with the

¶30

consent of both sides and the trial Court records having been received, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶31

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellants/plaintiffs are the wife and daughter of one Srinivasa who was alleged to have been missing from 01.09.2009 onwards. It is contented that the said Srinivasa's brother filed a complaint dated 06.09.2009. He registered as an FIR in Crime No.255/2009 reporting that the said Srinivasa was missing and the said Srinivasa's father having expired on 18.09.2018, the appellants/plaintiffs being the wife and daughter of the said Srinivasa succeeded to his estate as his

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44058 RFA No. 2338 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

only heirs and legal representatives. In order to claim their share in the said estate of Srinivasa, the appellants/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for a declaration that the said Srinivasa had died a civil death within the meaning of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since he was not heard of for more than 7 years from 01.09.2009 and consequential mandatory injunction and other reliefs.

¶35

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement contesting the suit and specifically contending that they had no knowledge about the fact that the said Srinivasa was missing and sought for dismissal of the suit. The third respondent - Police authorities did not file written statement nor contested the suit.

¶36

Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court

¶37

framed the following issues:

¶38

1. Whether the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 prove that they are entitled for Decree of Declaration that Sri.B.Srinivasa S/o.Late Basavaraju is deemed to be dead?

¶39

2. Whether the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 prove that they are entitled for Mandatory Injunction directing the 2^nd Defendant to record the death of Sri.B.Srinivasa S/o.Late Basavaraju in the Register of deaths maintained by them?

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44058 RFA No. 2338 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

3. Whether the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 prove that they are entitled for Direction, directing the Defendant No.2 to issue Death Certificate of Sri.B.Srinivasa S/o Late Basavaraju?

¶43

4. Whether the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are entitled for reliefs as claimed for?

¶44

5. What Order or Decree?

¶45

The plaintiff No.1, the wife of Srinivasa examined

¶46

herself as PW.1 and documentary evidence as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 cross examined PW.1, but did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their defence.

¶47

The trial Court heard the parties and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit,

¶48

aggrieved by which the appellants are before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶49

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44058 RFA No. 2338 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs by not accepting the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs; however the trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the cumulative effect of the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence of the plaintiffs, including the FIR, missing complaint, Ex.P9-the letter issued by the Subramanya Nagar Police Station dated 28.03.2019 to the effect that the said Srinivasa could not be traced from 2009 onwards which was well beyond the statutory prescribed period of 7 years as contemplated under Section 108 of the Evidence Act. The trial Court also failed to consider and appreciate that in the light of the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence of PW.1, the defendants/BBMP had not adduced any rebuttal evidence to establish that the said Srinivasa was alive as on the date of institution of the suit.

¶53

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:44058 RFA No. 2338 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal.

¶58

In the result, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

¶61

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 03.07.2020 in O.S.No.2696/2019 passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶62

(iii) The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed as sought for by them.

¶63

(iv) The respondent Nos.1 and 2-BBMP are directed to issue the Death Certificate in relation to the aforesaid B.Srinivasa within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶66

JUDGE

¶67

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Smt. Manjula v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manjula v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Manidhari Trading Company Vs State of Karnataka

M/S M K Agrotech Private Limited Vs Union of India

Motorla Mobility India Priate Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Bowring Service Station Vs the Commercial Tax Officer (ENFORCEMENT-56)

Sri Arun Kumar Mahapatra Vs Karnataka State Open University

Sri.Abdul Razak Vs the State of Karnataka