Rm.Arjunan Vs The District Collector

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.MU.Aa2/ 10496/2019 dated 10.05.2023 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and consequently direct the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 to issue Death Certificate for the petitioner's Father under Rule 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 2000 within time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/11

¶16

W.P(MD)No.6200 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohaboob Fazil

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order in O.MU.Aa2/ 10496/2019 dated 10.05.2023 on the file of the second respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue Death Certificate for the petitioner's Father under Rule 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules , 2000 within stipulated time.

¶21

The petitioner is a resident of Keezhakottai Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. After completing his education, he joined as a Lecturer at Ramasamy Tamil College, Karaikudi. Thereafter, he was working as a Tamil Teacher at the Government Higher Secondary School in the area. He retired from the service on 03.06.2005.

¶22

3.The petitioner states that his father, V.Ramasamy Pillai passed away on

¶23

08.06.1961 leaving behind the following legal heirs:

¶24

(1) R.Muniyandi,

¶25

(2) R.Kamala

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

2/11

¶28

W.P(MD)No.6200 of 2025

(3) R.Veeramani

(4) R.Rajeshwari

(5) R.Indirani

(6) Arjunan (writ petitioner)

¶33

On account of young age, the petitioner did not obtain the death certificate of his father during the relevant time.

¶34

He states that their family had founded a temple dedicated to Vadakkuvadi Draupadi Amman at Sivagangai. His grandfather, Abhimannu Pillai, had initiated a proceedings in O.P.No.72 of 1939 for the declaration that the said temple was an excepted temple. Accepting the contention, a decree was also passed on 18.11.1940. After the lifetime of Abhimannu Pillai, the temple was managed by his legal heirs. The revenue documents for the said temple stand in the name of his ancestors. For the purpose of the mutation of the revenue records, necessity arose to obtain the death certificate of his father, Ramasamy Pillai.

¶35

The petitioner applied for a death certificate on 23.12.2019. It was

¶36

rejected by the impugned order stating that as Ramasamy Pillai died on 08.06.1961, prior to enactment of Registration of Birth and Death Acts, there is

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

3/11

¶39

W.P(MD)No.6200 of 2025

¶40

no possibility of registering the death of the petitioner's father. Hence, this writ petition.

¶41

Heard Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil, for the petitioner and Mr.A.Kannan,

¶42

learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶43

Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil reiterated the contentions made in the affidavit

¶44

and pleaded that there is no bar under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act to give a certificate for a person, who has died before the commencement of the Act.

¶45

Per contra, Mr.A.Kannan, on instructions, states that since the Act came into force only on 01.04.1970 in the State of Tamil Nadu, the death which has taken place prior to the coming into force of the Act, cannot be registered under the Act.

¶46

I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the records.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

4/11

¶49

W.P(MD)No.6200 of 2025

¶50

The registration of birth, death, and marriage was governed by Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. That came into being repealed by virtue of Section 31 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. In terms of Section 31(2), the repeal of the said provision does not in any way affect anything done under the old Act, which is not inconsistent with the new Act and it is determined to have been done or taken under the provision of the Act as if it were done under this Act.

¶51

Prior to colonial rule, there was no provision for registration of births and deaths. A civil registration system was brought about by the colonialists for registering births, still births and deaths, on voluntary basis. Subsequently, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act of 1886 was legislated upon. This came into force on 1^st of October, 1888. This legislation too did not make registration of births and deaths compulsory. It was voluntary and applied to classes of people, who had registered their marriages under the Special Marriage Act 3 of 1872, the Indian Christian Marriage Act of 1872 and the Parci Marriage and Divorce Act of 1865. Subsequently, the Governor of the State of Madras brought in the Madras Registration of Births and Deaths Act of 1899. After Tamil Nadu was created, the word “Madras” was substituted with the word “Tamil Nadu” by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order of 1969.

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

5/11

¶54

W.P(MD)No.6200 of 2025

¶55

The primary goal of 1899 Act was to make a provision for registration of births and deaths in rural areas, which were not covered by any specific legislation. Prior to the 1899 legislation, there was no uniform system in registering births and deaths. Apart from the State of Madras and Bengal, which had specific legislations, the other areas of British India relied on laws governing local bodies. In fact the City of Madras was governed by a totally different set of rules. Rules were framed by the Governor for registration of births and deaths in Madras City in the year 1929. It was in the exercise of the powers under Section 327(2) and 347(2)(a) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act of 1919.

¶56

Registration of deaths was covered under Section 10 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act of 1899. Though Section 18 of the said Act made it a penal offence for not intimating the death to the Registrar, it was seldom followed.

¶57

Considering the different legislations prevailing across the country, the Union of India enacted the Registration of Births and Deaths Act of 1969. By virtue of Section 31 of the present legislation, the 1899 Act was superseded by the current legislation. Under the present dispensation, registration of deaths

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

6/11

¶60

W.P(MD)No.6200 of 2025

¶61

is governed by Section 8 of the Act. This provision is more or less similar to Section 10 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act of 1899. It has now become compulsory for a person to inform the Registrar about the death and give as many details as may be required about the person, who has expired.

¶62

In terms of Section 8(1)(a), if a death takes place in a house, it is the head of the household, who is recognized by the household to report regarding the death. In the absence of such a person, the oldest adult person therein during the said period is to give a report.

¶63

In terms of Section 21, the Registrar may orally or in writing require any person to furnish information within his knowledge in connection with the death in the locality where the person resided and it is the duty of such a person, who is called upon to furnish the particulars, to give details so required.

¶64

Presently, the State of Tamil Nadu has framed rules under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 2000. Under Rule 9(3) of the said Rules, if any birth or death has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, then the same shall be registered by an order of the Executive Magistrate not below the rank of the Revenue Divisional Officer on payment of

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/11

¶66

W.P(MD)No.6200 of 2025

¶67

a late fee of Rs.500/-. What is not barred under a legislation or statutory rules is deemed to have been permitted. The Rules do not fix an outer limit within which the births and deaths would have to be registered, in default of which, registration itself is held impermissible. What is not prohibited is deemed to have been permitted.

¶68

A combined reading of Rule 9(3) r/w Section 8(1)(a) and Section 21 makes it clear that even if the death which has taken place prior to the enactment of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act can be registered on payment of a late fee on an order made by the Executive Magistrate of the concerned area.

¶69

The petitioner was born on 03.06.1947. Therefore, on the date of the death of his father, on 08.06.1961, he would have been a teenager about 14 years old. The elder sibling, Muniyandi, should have registered the death of their father. Unfortunately, they have not done so. The petitioner could have initiated steps soon after reaching the age of majority. As he was working as a Teacher, the necessity to register the death of his father never arose. After his retirement, when the revenue records had to be mutated, the necessity for the death certificate has arisen. Immediately, the petitioner had filed an

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

8/11

¶72

W.P(MD)No.6200 of 2025

¶73

application, and it had been kept pending with the authorities for nearly 6 years. The reason given in the impugned order, stating that the death, which has taken place prior to the enactment of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, cannot be registered, cannot be sustained in the light of the specific provision referred to above. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. The application made by the petitioner on 23.12.2019 stands restored on the file of the second respondent. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- for the late fee. The second respondent shall conduct such an enquiry as it is necessary for the purpose of determining the date of death of the petitioner's father. Thereafter, the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders based on such enquiry. The said process shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the order.

¶74