The scope of verification under S. 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, is limited to verifying the correctness of the birth or death, and does not extend to determining the exact date of birth or death or resolving disputes over the date.

This revision is filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, reversing the order passed by the learned Magistrate under S.13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and directing registration of the death of M. Subramaniam in the Register of Births and Deaths.

2. The respondent is the daughter of the late M. Subramaniam and the petitioner is the son of Thoondil, the elder brother of M. Subramaniam. The death of Subramaniam had not been registered under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 (the Act, for short) and since an extract from the Register of Deaths maintained under the Act was necessary for the the respondent in the civil litigations between heir and the petitioner, she filed an application in Crl. M. P. 223087 under S. 13(3) of the Act in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai. According to the respondent the date of death of her father M. Subramaniam was 15-8-1957. The learned Magistrate caused publication to be made for objections and the petitioner, disputing the date of death entered appearance and contested the issue. According to the petitioner, the said M. Subrammaniam died in 1944. The learned Magistrate permitted both parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The respondent was examined as P. W. 1 and the then Tahsildar, Ambasamudhram, to whom the matter had been referred for verification and report, was examined as P. W. 2 and his report was marked as Ex. P 3. The voters list for the year 1955 was marked as Ex. P. 2 The petitioner examined himself as R. W. 1 and on his side, the certified copy of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi in A. S. No. 49 / 84 dated 25-2-1987 was marked as Ex. R. 1 and an account book maintained by the petitioner for the funeral expenses of his father Thoondil, was marked as Ex. R. 2. Though these were the only documents marked, reference is made to certain registration copies of documents executed by the parties. The learned Magistrate rejected Ex.P.2 on the ground that merely because the name of a person continues to be found in the voters list, the same would not be proof of the fact that the said person was alive. He rejected Ex.P.3 the report of P.W. 2 on the ground that it was not based on any thorough enquiry. He also rejected the evidence of the respondent. He however relied upon the registration copy of two documents, one executed by late Sankaran, the brother of the respondent herein on 10-1-1952 in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner's elder brother's son Chellappa and another document dated 10-5-1956 a mortgage deed executed by the said Sankaran to one Madan. In both the documents Sankaran had described the properties as belonging to him and being in his possession. The learned Magistrate reasoned that if Mr. Subramaniam would have joined his son in executing these documents and hence M. Subramaniam should have died even before 1952. The learned Magistrate accordingly dismissed the application stating that the date of the death of M. Subramaniam as put forward by the respondent was incorrect.

3. Aggrieved with the order, the respondent filed Cr.R.R. 16/26 before the Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision, allowed it on the ground that Ex.P.2 voters list showed that in 1955 M. Subramaniam was alive and in the voters list for the year 1959 M. Subramaniam's name had been deleted and this was strong that Subramaniam should have died between 1952 and 1956. He also commented upon the varying stand of the petitioner regarding the year of death of Subramaniam. In the civil suit the petitioner had stated that Subramaniam had died in 1944, whereas a registered document dated 28-11-1944 executed by M. Subramaniam and his son Sankaran belied this version and finding that the petitioner had shifted his stand by stating that Subramaniam had died in 1943 itself. Mainly on these considerations, the learned Additional Sessi