Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Smt. Muniyamma and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Devegowda and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 50331 to 50334 of 2012 (GM-RES)
Decided on : 26.6.2013
The language contained in section 13(3) mandates the magistrate to pass an order after verification of date of death. Verification involves determination or resting the truth or the accuracy of the statements made in the petition. Therefore, the Magistrate cannot blindly direct entry of date of death as sought for in the petition.
Rule 9(3) of the Karnataka Registration of Births and deaths Rules, 1999 states that any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order of a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate under Section 13(3) and on payment of a late fee of rupees ten.
Neither the Act nor the Rules provide for the procedure for conducting the proceedings when an application is made under this provision. It is true that, an entry in the register of births or deaths is not conclusive evidence of the disputed date of birth or date of death so also an entry pursuant to the directions of the Magistrate under Section 13(3). The order of the magistrate binds only the Registrar and not others.
An order passed under Section 13(3) of the Act, consequent to the suppression of material facts may visit with serious civil consequences. In the instant case, according to the petitioners, Devaiah had died in the year 1979 and that before his death, he had executed several sale deeds. The petitioners are claiming title to the properties under those sale deeds. The death certificate has been issued pursuant to the order of the Magistrate dated 29.3.2012. It is no doubt true that a contention can be raised by the petitioners in the suit that the death certificate is a fabricated one. But, if an appropriate procedure is followed by the Magistrate, the mischief it may cause can be prevented to a large extent.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS & DEATHS ACT, 1969 - Sections 13 & 13(3): [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Application filed under, seeking to enter date of death - Particulars to be furnished - Held, The Applicant has to furnish the details as to (a) The reasons/grounds as to why entry in the death register could not be made earlier and why he could not give information regarding the same to the competent authority; (b) The purpose for which he wants entry in the death register; (c) Wife and children of the deceased have to be made parties in the application as also the jurisdictional Registrar of Births and Deaths. ; (d) The particulars of the person/persons who are likely to be affected by the entry in the death register; (e) The magistrate can also direct the applicant to furnish such other particulars as he may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
If the application contains the above particulars, the Magistrate should not only issue notice to the respondents but also to those person who are likely to be affected by the order. He should also direct the issue of notice in two local daily newspapers, one of them should be in vernacular language, having wide circulation. The Magistrate may also issue such other directions as he may deem fit and proper, depending upon the facts of the case. He should hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. If there is a serious dispute with regard to the date of death, the Magistrate has to dismiss the petition with liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. On facts, held, The first respondent filed the petition against the second respondent / Tahsildar, who was placed ex-parte. The matter was concluded within a period of eight days. The other children of deceased were not made parties to the proceedings. No notice was issued to the persons interested. In the circumstances, the order impugned needs to be quashed and the Magistrate has to reconsider the matter by following the aforesaid procedure.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS & DEATHS ACT, 1969 - Section 13 (3) & Karnataka Registration of Births & Deaths Rules, 1999, Rule 9(3): [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Non-registration - Held, In case of non-registration within one year of the occurrence of birth or death, the registration could take place under Section 13(3) only on an order made by the Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death. Magistrate after verification of the accuracy of the statement made in the petition direct entry. He cannot blindly direct entry. The applicant has to furnish the details as to (a) The reasons/grounds as to why entry in the death register could not be made earlier and why he could not give information regarding the same to the competent authority; (b)The purpose for which he wants entry in the death register; (c) Wife and children of the deceased have to be made parties in the application as also the jurisdictional Registrar of Births and Deaths; (d) Particulars of person/persons, who are likely to be affected by the entry in the death register; (e) The Magistrate can also direct the applicant to furnish such other particulars as he may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. On facts of instant case, held, the first respondent filed the petition against the second respondent/Tahsildar, who was placed ex parte. The matter was concluded within a period of eight days. The other children of Deceased were not made parties to the proceedings. No notice was issued to the persons interested. In the circumstances, the order impugned needs to be quashed and the Magistrate has to reconsider the matter by following the aforesaid procedure. W.P. allowed in part.
S. Abdul Nazeer, J : In these cases, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order at Annexure 'A' dated 29.3.2012 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, has directed entry of the date of death of Sri Devaiah @ Devegowda as 24.2.1970 at Rajarajeshwarinagar and the death certificate of Devaiah @ Devegowda at Annexure 'B' dated 28.11.2012 issued by the third respondent.
2. The first respondent filed an application under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 ('Act' for short) in C.Misc.No.32/ 2012 before the Magistrate seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, to enter the date of death of his father late Devaiah @ Devegowda, son of Odegowda as 24.2.1970 in the records and to issue death certificate. It is contended that he has not intimated the death of his father to the competent authorities as he was under the impression that the hospital authorities would have intimated the date of death. When he approached the third respondent for issue of the death certificate, he was informed that the death of his father was not registered in the records.
3. The petition was presented by the first respondent on 21.3.2012 before the Magistrate. The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, was arrayed as the sole respondent. On the same day, hand summons was issued to the respondent. The case was posted on 26.3.2012 and on that day, the respondent was placed ex-parte. The first respondent filed an affidavit of examination-in-chief. The petition was allowed on 29.3.2012.
4. It appears that thereafter, Devegowda and his two brothers and one Manjunath son of late Ningamma filed a suit in O.S.No.5346/2012 against the petitioners herein and certain other persons for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 15.7.1970, 21.6.1972 and 31.1.1973 respectively. The said sale deeds were executed by Devaiah in favour of the petitioners and certain other persons. Several other reliefs have been sought for in the suit. One of the contentions in the plaint is that the sale deeds are fabricated documents.
5. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions contending that Devaiah had died in the year 1979. With a view to create evidence of the death of Devaiah earlier to the date of execution of the sale deeds, the first respondent has obtained the impugned order by playing fraud and misrepresentation.
6. I have heard Sri C.M. Nagabushana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Sajjan Poovaiah, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Sri B.V. Muralidhar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. The first respondent though served has not been represented in these cases.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Devaiah, father of the first respondent had died in the year 1979. He had executed several sale deeds in respect of certain immoveable properties during the years 1970 to 1973. The first respondent filed the petition under Section 13(3) before the Magistrate for a direction to enter the date of death of his father Devaiah @ Devegowda as 24.2.1970 by suppressing material facts and has obtained an order as per Annexure 'A' and the death certificate at Annexure 'B'. This was done with a view to seek a declaration that the sale deeds are fabricated documents. The Magistrate has not held an enquiry. The other legal representatives of Devaiah have not been made parties to the petition. No notice has been issued to the interested persons.
8. Sri Sajjan Poovaiah, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that since no Rules have been framed under the Act regulating the procedure for entering the date of death, which has serious consequences, certain directions have to be issued so that the other legal representatives and the persons interested may also participate in the proceedings, if they so desire.
9. The object of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, is to give legal status to the registration of births and deat
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
