A death certificate constitutes credible evidence of a decedent's date of death and supports the statutory rights of heirs in succession disputes.

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. S.P. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-Opposite Parties and Mr. S.K. Mohanty and Mr. G.M. Rath, learned Advocates for private Opposite Parties.

2. Order dated 27.05.2013 of the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Cuttack passed in R.P. No.290 of 2007 is impugned in the present writ petition.

3. The facts of the case are that, one Mohani Senapati is the common ancestor of the parties. Lobhabati, original Opposite Party No.1 in the writ petition and the revision Petitioner before the Commissioner was the daughter of Mohani Senapati and Sahadev Senapati was the son of Mohani. Present Petitioners and the proforma Opposite Parties belong to the branch of Sahadev and the substituted Opposite Parties in the writ petition are the successor of Lobhabati. These facts remains admitted by both the parties, specifically the status of Lobhabati as the daughter of Mohani is not disputed.

4. After death of Mohani, the RoR was recorded in the name of the Petitioners and other successors excluding Lobhabati which was challenged by her in 2001 before the Commissioner under Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act in R.P. Case No.290 of 2007. Initially said revision petition was remanded to the Tahasildar which was subsequently challenged before this Court and this Court directed the Tahasildar to conduct enquiry instead of remand and submit a report to the Commissioner, who had to decide the revision on merit. Pursuant to said order of this Court, the Tahasildar submitted his enquiry report and based on the same, the Commissioner has decided the revision by passing the impugned order dated 27.05.2013, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition

5. Mr. Rao contends on behalf of the Petitioners that, Mohani died prior to commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore Lobhabati being the daughter of Mohani cannot have any claim over the properties of Mohani. According to the Petitioners, the RoR was corrected in the year 1962 stating Mohani died prior to that in the Yadast dated 17.3.1962. Therefore, it is established that, Mohani died prior to 1962 and according to their averments in the year 1951.

6. On the other hand, the contesting Opposite Parties submits that, the Legal Heir Certificate as well as the Death Certificate does certify the claim of Lobhabati regarding her successorship, and death of Mohani on 20.8.1971. Therefore, all such contentions raised by the Petitioners disputing the death of Mohani in 1971 are inadmissible on record.

7. I have gone through the impugned order as well as report of the Tahasildar dated 24.10.2011. I have also seen the Death Certificate and Legal Heir Certificate of Mohani filed under Annexure-1/A and 1/F. There appears no material on record from the side of the Petitioners to justify the date of death of Mohani prior to 1956 or as claimed by the Petitioners in 1951. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have produced the Death Certificate of Mohani stating the date of death on 20.8.1971. It is here submitted by the Petitioners that, earlier Lobhabati had filed one title suit which was dismissed for default and in that plaint the year of death of Mohani has been mentioned in 1960. So the date mentioned in the Death Certificate is contrary to the own averment of Lobhabati made in the title suit, and as such, the Death Certificate has lost its credibility.

8. I fail to agree with the submissions advanced by the Petitioners to disagree with the date mentioned in the Death Certificate. Whatever may be the averment