JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2022 S.Manikumar, C.J.

The appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4159 of

2021, challenging the judgment of the writ court dated 02.11.2021 whereby the following reliefs sought for by the petitioner were declined and the writ petition was dismissed.

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding second respondent to issue death certificate to the petitioner in respect of death of petitioner’s father, Late P.I.George.

ii) Issue appropriate writ or order declaring that the stand taken by the second respondent to produce an order of civil court declaring the civil death of petitioner's father for granting death certificate is illegal and unjust, considering the findings and observations in Exhibit P2.”

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

Appellant has sought for a direction to the Registrar of Births and Deaths – the 2nd respondent herein, to issue a death certificate of appellant’s father Mr.P.I.George, who is missing since 10.03.2007 onwards. According to the appellant, there is no information about his father from 10.09.2007 and his whereabouts are not known and therefore, there is a presumption of civil death as per section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was taking into account the said aspect that the appellant has submitted an application before the Registrar of Births and Deaths seeking to issue the death certificate of the appellant’s father. The grievance highlighted by the appellant is that the 2nd respondent did not consider the application by taking a stand that the application can be considered only if the appellant produces an order from the court declaring the civil death of the appellant’s father. Thus aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent, the writ petition has been preferred.

3. After a detailed and elaborate consideration of sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and bearing in mind the principles of law laid down by this court in Devaki Amma Kamalamma and Another v. Grace Appa Amma and Others (2017 (3) KHC 12), the judgment in Bhargavi Amma v. Bhaskara Pillai (1988 KHC 496), the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in LIC of India v. Anuradha (2004 (2) KLT 351 (SC)) and the judgment of this court in Joseph Peter and Others v. Elizabeth Manuel and Others (2019 (3) KLT SN 17), the learned single Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to get any orders directing the Registrar of Births and Deaths to consider the application submitted by the appellant to issue the death certificate. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appeal is preferred.

4. The basic contention advanced by the appellant is that the learned single Judge did not consider the contention of the appellant that the circular issued by the Directorate of Panchayats dated 10.05.2017 issuing guidelines and revised instruction on births and deaths registration is against the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

5. It is also pointed out that on the basis of the counter afÏdavit filed by the 2nd respondent and the circular produced, the appellant filed an application for amendment of the writ petition, intended to raise a ground challenging the circular issued by the Directorate of Panchayats, directing the registrars of births and deaths as to the manner in which a death certificate is to be issued in the light of Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.

6. That apart, it is contended that the learned single Judge was not justified in ignoring Exhibit P2 judgment passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Chengannur in O.S.No.298 of 2014 dated 28.05.2015 in a partition suit filed by the appellant as well as his mother wherein the appellant, the mother and the appellant’s sister were set apart with one-third share each.

7. Relying upon the said