Karnataka High Court
Sri.Siddalingaiah vs The Deputy Tahsildar on 27 May, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 54224 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH
S/O CHANNABASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
BURUDAGATTA VILLAGE,
KORA HOBLI 522128
TUMKUR TALUK & DIST
SINCE DEAD BY L.R.s
1. SMT. AMBIKAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
2. SRI. NITHYNANDA B.S.
Digitally signed S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH
by SHWETHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. SRI. MANJUNATHA
KARNATAKA S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BURUDAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KEMPANA DODDERI POST,
KORA HOBLI-572128,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
4. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
D/O LATE. SIDDALINGAIAH,
W/O SADHASHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT VAKKODI VILLAGE,
SIDDARTHANAGARA POST,
BELLAVI HOBLI-572107,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T GOVINDARAJA., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND
DEATH, KORA
KORA HOBLI 522128
TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT
2. SRI MAHADEVAIAH
S/O SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BURUDAGATTA
KORA HOBLI 522128
TUMKUR TALUK & DIST.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 13.11.2013 OF THE ANNEXURE-D ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKURU, THROUGH THE ORDER OF
THE LOK-ADALATH, TUMKUR, IN C.MIS.1134/2013 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.04.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
(i) To quash the order dated 13.11.2013 of the
Annexure-D on the file of II Addl. Civil
Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru, through the
order of the Lok Adalat, Tumkur, in
C.Mis.1134/2013.
(ii) To hold the death certificate as per
Annexure-E dated 31.01.2014 of the I
Respondent through his subordinate officer
as void in law and not enforceable.
(iii) To issue the writ of certiorari or such other
writ or pass such other order as the Hon'ble
court may deem fit to grant under the
circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of
land in Sy.No.22/2, measuring 3 acres and 5 guntas,
situated at Burudagatta Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur
Taluk--the predecessor of the petitioner, viz.,
Sri.Siddalingaiah, of whom the petitioners are the
legal heirs, had purchased the same under a
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
registered sale deed dated 03.04.1979 from
Smt.Honnamma.
3. The second Respondent, Sri.Mahadevaiah, claiming
to be the grandson of late Smt.Honnamma, had
applied for the issuance of her Death Certificate
alleging that she had expired on 15.06.1975.
4. An endorsement was issued by the Deputy Tahsildar,
acting as a Registrar of births and deaths stating that
no such registration of the entry could be made in
such a belated manner. It is in that background that
Sri.Mahadevaiah filed an application before the II
Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru in
C.Misc.1134 of 2013 seeking for a direction to the
Respondent therein, i.e., the Deputy Tahsildar, to
issue the Death Certificate of petitioner's
grandmother by name Smt.Honnamma, wife of
Sri.Kalaiah, stated to have expired in her residence
on 15.06.1975 and to make necessary entries in the
office ledger of the Deputy Tahsildar.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
5. In the said matter, notice was issued to the first
Respondent, Deputy Tahsildar. Despite service, the
said Deputy Tahsildar was absent when the matter
was taken up on 11.11.2013, and thereafter the
matter was posted on 13.11.2013 for
enquiry/evidence. On the very same day, it is stated
that the matter was referred to Lok Adalat at Tumkur
for disposal, wherein the second Respondent,
Sri.Mahadevaiah filed a memo styled as a joint
memo stating that the Respondent agreed to enter
the date of death as prayed for by the petitioner and
as such, Sri.Mahadevaiah requested Lok Adalat to
accept the Memo. The said Memo was in turn
accepted by the Lok Adalat and an order was passed
virtually directing the Respondent to act as per the
joint Memo and the case was closed.
6. On the basis of the said order, Sri.Mahadevaiah wrote
to the first Respondent who issued the Death
Certificate of Smt.Honnamma indicating her date of
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
death to be 15.06.1975. Challenging the same, the
petitioners are before this Court.
7. The submission of Sri.T.Govindaraja, learned counsel
for the Petitioners, is that:
7.1. The said Smt.Honnamma had expired in the
year 1985 after executing a registered sale
deed in favour of the father of the petitioner on
03.04.1979. Respondent No. 2 has used this
novel method for obtaining registration of the
death of Smt.Honnamma, indicating the date of
death to be 15.06.1975 and on that basis, the
execution of the registered sale deed dated
03.04.1979 is sought to be denied by
Sri.Mahadevaiah. His submission is that there is
a clear and categorical abuse of the process of
Court and Lok Adalat resorted to by
Sri.Mahadevaiah, resulting in such an order
being passed.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
7.2. In fact, by referring to the alleged joint Memo,
he submits that there is no agreement or
understanding or settlement which has been
arrived upon between the Deputy Tahsildar and
Sri.Mahadevaiah inasmuch as the joint Memo,
certified copy of which has been produced at
Annexure-C to the writ petition, is only signed
by the petitioner and not by the Respondent.
Even in the order passed by Lok Adalat, though
it is taken that a joint memo has been filed, it is
only the signature of Sri.Mahadevaiah identified
by his counsel, which is found on the order
sheet at Annexure - D. There is no signature of
the Deputy Tahsildar or his Counsel found on
the said order sheet.
7.3. It is misusing and abusing the said order
passed by the Lok Adalat that Sri.Mahadevaiah
prevailed upon the Deputy Tahsildar to issue
the Death Certificate. The petitioners, though
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
not a party before the said proceedings, being
aggrieved by the recordal of the so-called joint
Memo and the action taken thereon are before
this Court.
7.4. An order could not have been passed without
verification as regards any action taken by late
Smt.Honnamma during her lifetime, inasmuch
as the registered sale deed having been
executed in the year 1979, she having expired
in the year 1985, Sri.Mahadevaiah now seeks to
backdate the date of death to 1975 and as
such, it was required that necessary paper
publication was taken out inviting objections
from any aggrieved party or affected party. If
such a paper publication had been taken out,
the petitioners would have responded to the
same, brought the above facts to the notice of
the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C,
Tumkuru in C.Misc.1134 of 2013 as also the Lok
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
Adalat. Albeit his submission is that if they had
made their representation, the question of
reference to Lok Adalat itself would not have
arisen. On the above grounds, he submits that
the above petition is required to be allowed and
the relief sought for be granted.
8. Sri.P.M.Siddamalappa, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 submits that;
8.1. What is sought for is a Death Certificate of the
grandmother of Sri.Mahadevaiah, as regards
which the petitioners cannot have any dispute.
8.2. It is on account of petitioner No. 1's husband
and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 claiming that
a sale deed has been executed on 03.04.1971
when Smt.Honnamma had expired in the year
1975, that Sri.Mahadevaiah filed necessary
application for issuance of Death Certificate, the
same not having been issued, proceedings were
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
initiated in C.Misc.1134 of 2013 before the II
Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru,
which was referred to the Lok Adalat,
considering that the matter relates to the
belated issue or non-issue of the death
certificate.
8.3. That the signature of the Deputy Tahsildar is
normally not taken in such joint memos, which
are filed, there being several 100's of matters
relating to the non issuance of birth and death
certificates which are regularly and as a matter
of course referred to Lok Adalat. All
proceedings relating to non-issuance of Birth
Certificates or Death Certificates being only
formal petitions, direction is issued by the Lok
Adalat to the Tahsildar and or the concerned
Registrar of births and deaths to process the
application for issuance of Birth Certificate and
or Death Certificate and as such, the absence of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
signature of the Deputy Tahsildar on the joint
Memo is of no consequence.
8.4. A direction having been issued by Lok Adalat
has been implemented by the Tahsildar by
following due process and as such, no fault
could be found therewith. On these grounds, he
submits that the writ petition is required to be
dismissed.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the first Respondent, Deputy Tahsildar would
submit that the Deputy Tahsildar has acted as per
the directions of the Lok Adalat and no fault can be
found with the actions of the Deputy Tahsildar.
10. Heard Sri.T.Govindaraja, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.P.M.Siddamalappa, learned counsel for
respondent No.2, Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent
No.1. Perused papers.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
11. The points that would arise for the consideration of
this Court are:
1. Could a matter be referred to the Lok
Adalat without the consent of both
parties?
2. Could the Lok Adalat consider a memo
styled as a joint memo, signed by only one
of the parties, to pass orders thereon?
3. Whether in proceedings relating to a
direction for issuance of a birth certificate
or a death certificate in a belated manner,
would a public notice be required to be
issued inviting objections from third
parties?
4. What order?
12. I answer the above points as follows:
13. Answer to Point No. 1: Could a matter be
referred to the Lok Adalat without the consent
of both parties?
13.1. A Lok Adalat is held in terms of the provisions
of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987
[hereinafter referred to as 'LSA Act'] under the
agies of the National Legal Services Authority
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
(NALSA), in association with the Legal Services
Authority of the concerned State, in the State
of Karnataka, the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, (KSLSA). The relevant
provision in that regard being Section 19 of
Chapter VI of the LSA Act is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.--(1) Every State
Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal
Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk
Legal Services Committee may organize Lok Adalats
at such intervals and places and for exercising such
jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.
(2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall
consist of such number of--
(a) serving or retired judicial officers; and
(b) other persons,
of the area as may be specified by the State Authority
or the District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal
Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services
Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal
Services Committee, organising such Lok Adalat.
(3) The experience and qualifications of other persons
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok
Adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal
Services Committee shall be such as may be
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
prescribed by the Central Government in consultation
with the Chief Justice of India.
(4) The experience and qualifications of other persons
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok
Adalats other than referred to in sub-section (3) shall
be such as may be prescribed by the State
Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of
the High Court.
(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine
and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between
the parties to a dispute in respect of--
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction
of, and is not brought before,
any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised:
Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction
in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence
not compoundable under any law.
13.2. A perusal of Section 19 of Chapter VI indicates
that every State Authority or District Authority
or the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee or every High Court Legal Services
Committee as the case may be, Taluk Legal
Services Committee may organise Lok Adalat at
such intervals and places and for exercising
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
such jurisdiction for such areas as it thinks fit.
It is in pursuance thereof that the Lok Adalat to
which C.Misc.1134 of 2013 was referred was
held.
13.3. In terms of sub-Section (5) of Section 19, the
Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine
and to arrive at a compromise or settlement
between the parties to a dispute in respect of
any case pending before or any matter which is
falling within the jurisdiction of and now
brought before the Court for which the Lok
Adalat is organised.
13.4. A reference can be made, therefore of any case
pending or any matter falling within the
jurisdiction, cognisance of those cases could be
taken up by the Lok Adalat in terms of Section
20 of the LSA Act, where any case is referred to
in terms of Clause (i) of sub-Section (5) of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
Section 19. Section 20 of the LSA Act is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"20. Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalats--
(1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of
sub-section (5) of section 19,--
(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or
(b) one of the parties thereof
makes an application to the
Court, for referring the case to
the Lok Adalat for settlement
and if such Court is prima facie
satisfied that there are chances
of such settlement; or
(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter
is an appropriate one to be taken
cognisance of by the Lok Adalat, the
Court shall refer the case to the Lok
Adalat:
Provided that no case shall be referred to
the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of
Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court
except after giving a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the parties.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
any cither law for the time being in force, the
Authority or Committee organising the Lok
Adalat under sub-section (1) of section 19
may, on receipt of an application from any
one of the parties to any matter referred to
in Clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19
that such matter needs to be determined by
a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok
Adalat, for determination:
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
Provided that no matter shall be referred
to the Lok Adalat except after giving a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the
other party.
(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok
Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a
reference has been made to it under sub-
section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to
dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a
compromise or settlement between the
parties.
(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining
any reference before it under this Act, act
with utmost expedition to arrive at a
compromise or settlement between the
parties and shall be guided by the principles
of justice, equity, fair play and other legal
principles.
(5) Where no award is made by the Lok
Adalat on the ground that no compromise or
settlement could be arrived at between the
parties, the record of the case shall be
returned by it to the Court, from which the
reference has been received under sub-
section (1) for disposal in accordance with
law.
(6) Where no award is made by the Lok
Adalat on the ground that no compromise or
settlement could be arrived at between the
parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section
(2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties
to seek remedy in a court.
(7) Where the record of the case if returned
under sub-section (5) to the Court, such
Court shall proceed to deal with such case
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
from the stage which was reached before
such reference under sub-section (1).]"
13.5. Cognisance of cases could be taken by the Lok
Adalat in terms of Section 20 of the LSA Act, if
parties thereof agree or one of the parties
thereof moves an application to the Court for
referring the case to Lok Adalat for settlement
and or if such Court is prima facie satisfied that
there are chances of such settlement or the
Court by itself is satisfied that the matter is an
appropriate one to be taken cognisance of by
the Lok Adalat.
13.6. The proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 20
makes it imperative that no matter shall be
referred to the Lok Adalat, under sub-Clause
(b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) of sub-Section
(1) of Section 20 of the LSA Act by such Court
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
except after giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to the parties.
13.7. Thus, if both the parties agree for reference to
Lok Adalat in terms of sub-Clause (a) of Clause
(i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 20, there will
be no requirement of hearing to be provided to
the parties.
13.8. It is only if only one of the parties were to make
an application to the Court under sub-Clause
(b) of Clause (i) or if the Court by itself wants
to refer the matter to Lok Adalat, under sub-
Clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) that in terms of
the proviso, there is a requirement to provide
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the
parties.
13.9. In that view of the matter, if the said provisio is
applied to the present fact situation, it is clear
that the Memo which had been filed was only
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
by Sri.Mahadevaiah and not along with the
Deputy Tahsildar, who was the Respondent in
the said proceedings. Thus, there is no
agreement between both the parties to refer
the matter to Lok Adalat. At the most, it could
be said that Sri.Mahadevaiah wanted a
reference to Lok Adalat to be made in terms of
sub-Clause (b) of Clause (i) of sub-Section (1)
of Section 20 of the LSA Act. It is on that basis,
the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat.
13.10. As referred to Supra, when only one of the
parties were to seek for reference to Lok
Adalat, it is required that no reference can be
made to the Lok Adalat without giving a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to both
the parties, i.e. the Deputy Tahsildar who had
not in actuality or in writing agreed to such a
reference.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
13.11. This defect though goes to the root of the
matter, in my opinion is curable one before the
Lok Adalat, and can be so cured if all the
parties were to be present before the Lok
Adalat and agree for a settlement in writing.
13.12. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1
by holding that if all the parties were to agree
for a matter to be referred to the Lok Adalat,
then the Court could refer the matter to Lok
Adalat without the requirement of hearing of
any of the parties.
13.13. If one of the parties were to seek for reference
to Lok Adalat, without the consent of the other
party/ies, then in terms of the proviso to sub-
Section (1) of Section 20, it would be required
for the Court to hear all the parties before such
reference could be made.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
13.14. If the Court were to suo motu refer the matter
to Lok Adalat, being of the opinion that it is
eminently suitable for settlement, then all the
parties would have to be heard and thereafter
an order would have to be passed by the said
Court.
13.15. Needless to say if a reference to Lok Adalat is
made contrary to the proviso to sub-Section (1)
of Section 20, such reference is invalid and the
Lok Adalat does not get any right to record a
settlement unless all the parties are present
before the Lok Adalat and submit a settlement
in writing signed by all of them identiefied by
their respective advocates and the identities are
verified by the Lok Adalat.
13.16. In the present case, a memo, though styled as
a joint memo, has only been filed by one of the
parties to C.Misc.1134 of 2013 and as such, in
my considered opinion, the II Additional Civil
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru could not have
referred the matter to the Lok Adalat without
having heard the Deputy Tahsildar since there
is no consent by such Deputy Tahsildar for such
reference. Even before the Lok Adalat, neither
the Deputy Thasildhar nor his advocate were
present, thus, the defect was not cured for the
Lok Adalat to exercise jurisdiction.
14. Answer to Point No. 2: Could the Lok Adalat
consider a memo styled as a joint memo,
signed by only one of the parties, to pass
orders thereon?
14.1. The Memo which has been filed before the Lok
Adalat reads as under:
JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PETITINER
AND RESPONDENT AS FOLLOWS:
The petitioner and Respondent jointly filed this
Memo as under:
The Respondent has agreed to enter the
date of Death as prayed by the petitioner. The
petitioner has agreed to pay the required
charge for the entry to be made in the register
of Death by the Respondent. Hence, this Memo
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
Wherefore, the Petitioner and
Respondent humbly prays that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to accept the
joint Memo filed by under Section in the ends
of justice.
Sd/-
Petitioner
Place: Tumkur
Date: 13.11.2013 Respondent
14.2. A perusal of the above would indicate that the
petitioner and Respondent had jointly filed the
Memo, which is not correct inasmuch as the
same has been signed only by Sri.Mahadevaiah,
but not by the Deputy Tahsildar. The second
paragraph of the Memo styled as joint Memo
reads that 'the respondent has agreed to enter
the date of death as prayed by the petitioner
and the petitioner has agreed to pay the
required charges for the entry to be made in
the register of death by the respondent'. Now
this is again a unilateral statement made by
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
Sri.Mahadevaiah, the petitioner therein,
inasmuch as there is no particular agreement
by the Respondent - Deputy Tahsildar to enter
the date of death as prayed by the petitioner
since the Deputy Tahsildar has not signed the
said Memo nor can the Deputy Tahsildar agree
to the same, there being no particular provision
under law, which would entitle such a belated
entry of the date of death and issuance of the
death certificate without a proper enquiry being
conducted.
14.3. It is taking the said Memo on record that the
Lok Adalat took up the matter, noted the joint
Memo having been filed and directed the
Respondent and observed "respondent has to
act as per joint memo. Case is closed".
14.4. A Lok Adalat, as indicated above, is held to
facilitate settlement of disputes and or litigation
between the parties. The Lok Adalat is not
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
vested with any right to determine a dispute
between the parties or to issue a direction to
any of the parties when there is no such
acceptance by way of settlement by any of the
parties. This would also be relevant to be taken
into consideration with regard to the reference
made to Lok Adalat.
14.5. The above petition was filed on 09.10.2013. On
11.11.2013, it was observed that notice was
duly served on the Respondent - Deputy
Thasildhar who was called out and was noted to
absent and the matter was posted for enquiry
on 13.11.2013, i.e., within two days thereafter.
14.6. On 13.11.2013, the petition was put up and the
matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Thus,
even on 13.11.2013, there was no appearance
on the part of the Deputy Thasildhar, the
Deputy Thasildhar was neither represented by
an advocate nor was he placed exparte.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.7. The matter was taken up on 13.11.2013 before
the Lok Adalat, i.e., on the very same day and
the Lok Adalat observed that the Respondent
has to act as per the joint Memo, which does
not even bear the signature of the Respondent.
14.8. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the
Lok Adalat could not have directed the
Respondent to act as per joint Memo by
accepting a unilateral memo filed by the
petitioner stating as if that the Respondent had
agreed to something, without the signature of
the Respondent. A memo styled as a joint
memo, signed by only one of the parties, can
only be said to be a unilateral memo and could
not have been acted upon by the Lok Adalat to
record any settlement. It is a trite law that for a
settlement, all the parties are required to agree
and/or that a settlement is a contract that is
bilateral or multilateral and is never unilateral.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.9. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that if
any settlement were to be recorded by the Lok
Adalat, it would have to be so recorded in terms
of the agreement arrived at between all the
parties, which could be in the form of a joint
memo filed by all the parties, signed by all the
parties and their respective counsels, or a
compromise petition filed by all the parties,
signed by all the parties, identified by their
respective counsels.
14.10. If a Settlement is recorded without the
settlement being signed by all the parties, the
recordal of such settlement will be invalid and
unenfoceable.
15. Answer to Point No. 3: Whether in proceedings
relating to a direction for issuance of a birth
certificate or a death certificate in a belated
manner, would a public notice be required to be
issued inviting objections from third parties?
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.1. In the present case, as can be seen, the
contention of Sri.Mahadevaiah, in a petition
filed in C.Misc.1134 of 2013 was that
Smt.Honnamma had expired at her residence
on 15.06.1975, i.e., nearly 38 years prior to the
filing of the C.Misc. Petition. There is no
document that accompanies the said petition in
support thereof, except the statement made by
Sri.Mahadevaiah that he required the Death
Certificate of his grandmother in order to
produce the same before the concerned
authorities for change of Khata.
15.2. The fact that there was a reference made that
the Death Certificate was required for change of
Khata would indicate that the Death Certificate
was required to be used in respect of an
immovable property. The details of the
immovable property had not been furnished
along with the petition.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.3. The immovable property in question in the
present matter is stated to be the property,
which had been sold by Smt.Honnamma in
favour of Sri.Siddalingaiah, the husband of the
first petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 to
4 under a registered sale deed dated
03.04.1979.
15.4. It was firstly required for Sri.Mahadevaiah to
have brought the said facts to the notice of the
Court as also the dispute between
Sri.Siddalingaiah on the one hand and
Sri.Mahadevaiah on the other as regards the
said property. It was required for
Sri.Mahadevaiah to place on record that there is
a sale deed claimed to have been executed in
the year 1979 by Sri.Siddalingaiah which is
much before the date of filing of C.Misc.1134 of
2013. If at all, the same had been brought to
the notice of the II Additional Civil Judge and
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
J.M.F.C, Tumkuru, the same could never have
been referred to the Lok Adalat without
issuance of notice to the person's claiming
under the sale deed. It is therefore clear that
Sri.Mahadevaiah has abused the process of
Court and misused the Lok Adalat held under
the AGe's of the LSA 1987 to achieve his
nefarious purposes.
15.5. This aspect has also been considered by this
Court in SMT.MUNIYAMMA AND OTHERS VS.
DEVEGOWDA AND OTHERS1 more
particularly, para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
9. The object of the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969, is to give legal status to the
registration of births and deaths by judicial
machinery. A legal duty is cast upon the
persons specified in Section 8 to give
information to the Registrar of such Births and
Deaths. Section 13 lays down the procedure
for delayed registration of births and deaths.
1
ILR 2013 KAR 4703
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
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. Section 13(3) of the Act reads as
under:
"13. Delayed registration of births and deaths:
(1) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(2) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(3) Any birth or death which has not
been registered within one year of its
occurrence, shall be registered only on
an order made by a magistrate of the
first class or a Presidency Magistrate
after verifying the correctness of the
birth or death and on payment of the
prescribed fee.
(4) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx"
10. Thus, Section 13(3) authorises the Magistrate
to pass an order on an application after
verification of the correctness of the birth and
death.
11. 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 Presidence Magistrate
under Section 13(3) and on payment of a late
fee of rupees ten.
12. 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
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
register of births or death is not conclusive
evidence of the disputed date of birth or 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. (See H.SUBBA RAO VS. THE LIFE
INSURANCE CORPORTION OF INDIA,
BANGALORE & ANOTHER - AIR 1976 KAR
231).
13. An order passed under this provision
consequent to the suppression of material
facts may visit with serious civil consequences.
Let us take the present case for instance.
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. The language
contained in Section 13(3) mandates the
Magistrate to pass an order after verification of
date of death. Verification involves
determination or testing 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.
17. Therefore, the applicant has to state atleast the
following particulars in the application filed
under Section 13(3) of the Act for entering the
date of death:
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
(i) 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.
(ii) The purpose for which he wants entry in the
death register.
(iii) Wife and children of the deceased have to be
made parties in the application as also the
Jurisdictional Registrar of Births and Deaths.
(iv) The particulars of the person/persons, who are
likely to be affected by the entry in the death
register.
(v) 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.
15.6. This Court in Paragraph 17 above has referred
to Section 13 of the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 [hereinafter referred to as
'RBDA, 1969']. The said Section 13 is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
13. Delayed registration of births and
deaths.--
(1) Any birth or death of which information is
given to the Registrar after the expiry of the
period specified therefor, but within thirty
days of its occurrence, shall be registered on
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
payment of such late fee as may be
prescribed.
(2) Any birth or death of which delayed
information is given to the Registrar after
thirty days but within one year of its
occurrence shall be registered only with the
written permission of the prescribed
authority and on payment of the prescribed
fee and the production of an affidavit made
before a notary public or any other officer
authorised in this behalf by the State
Government.
(3) Any birth or death which has not been
registered within one year of its occurrence,
shall be registered only on an order made by
a magistrate of the first class or a Presidency
Magistrate after verifying the correctness of
the birth or death and on payment of the
prescribed fee.
(4) The provisions of this section shall be
without prejudice to any action that may be
taken against a person for failure on his part
to register any birth or death within the time
specified therefor and any such birth or
death may be registered during the
pendency of any such action.
15.7. The coordinate bench of this Court by referring
to Section 13 of RBDA, 1969 has categorically
stated that if there is an application filed for
belated entry of the date of death, Firstly, the
reasons / grounds as to why entry in the death
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
register could not be made earlier and why the
information could not be given to the
competent authority earlier was to be
mentioned in the petition. Secondly, the
purpose for which the Death Certificate was
required was to be mentioned. Thirdly, the wife
and children of the deceased have to be made
parties to the application. Fourthly, and more
importantly, the particulars of any person /
persons who are likely to be affected by the
entry in the death register would have to be
provided and Fifthly, the Magistrate could direct
the applicant to furnish such other particulars
as he may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
15.8. Therefore, a duty was imposed upon
Sri.Mahadevaiah in this particular case to
indicate the details of the person / persons who
are likely to be affected by the entry in the
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
death register, viz., Sri.Siddhalingaiah, who has
claimed to have purchased the property under a
registered sale deed from Smt.Honnamma in
the year 1979. The registered sale deed and
the entries made in furtherance thereof being
constructive notice to one and all.
15.9. The Registrar of births and deaths in such a
situation, in terms of Section 13 of RBDA, 1969,
is required to hold an enquiry when belated
applications are filed to satisfy himself that the
application made is bonafide and no third party
is adversely affected by issuance of such Death
Certificate. This aspect would equally apply to a
Birth Certificate inasmuch as a belated
application for a Birth Certificate having been
filed if a Birth Certificate is issued belatedly the
said Birth Certificate could be misused for
various purposes including creation of false
identities and as such, in those cases, it would
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
be required to ascertain the veracity and the
authenticity of the application filed, whether the
applicant is the person who claims to have been
born on that date as regard which the
certificate is to be issued and that he or she is
alive as on the date on which the certificate is
sought for, among other aspects.
15.10. The above situation has arisen on account of
sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of RBDA, 1969
requiring any birth or death which has not been
registered within one year of its occurrence to
be registered only on order made by a
Magistrate of I Class or a Presidency
Magistrate, after verifying the correctness of
the birth or death and on payment of the
prescribed fee.
15.11. The coordinate bench of this Court in
SMT.MUNIYAMMA's case having dealt with in
these aspects has in paragraph 18,
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
categorically held that when the particulars
mentioned in para 17 extracted above are
placed on record, the Magistrate should not
only issue notice to the Respondent, but also to
those persons who are likely to be affected by
the order and he should also direct the issuance
of notice in two local daily newspapers one of
them should be in vernacular language having
wide circulation. The said paragraph 18, is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
18. If the application contains the above
particulars, the Magistrate should not only
issue notice to the respondents but also to
those persons 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.
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.12. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.3
by holding that, it would be required for an
applicant who has filed an application belatedly
for registration of birth or death in terms of
sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of RBDA, 1969, to
provide the following details in terms of the
decision in MUNIYAMMA'S case, at the para
17.
(i) 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.
(ii) The purpose for which he wants entry in the
death register.
(iii) Wife and children of the deceased have to
be made parties in the application as also
the Jurisdictional Registrar of Births and
Deaths.
(iv) The particulars of the person/persons, who
are likely to be affected by the entry in the
death register.
(v) 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.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.13. Apart therefrom, I am of the considered opinion
that further details as under would also have to
be provided.
i. The details of the properties held by the
deceased, along with documents in relation
thereto including revenue documents.
ii. The details of any transaction in respect of
the properties affected prior to the
application filed for the issuance of such
belated death certificate. Along with
documents.
iii. The particulars of the persons who are party
to such transaction with complete postal
address.
iv. The details of all the legal heirs of the
deceased person, doctor's certificate, if
available, indicate the cause of death with
the date and time of death.
15.14. The above details to be provided along with the
petition. The Magistrate before whom the said
matter comes up would be required to conduct
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
a proper enquiry to ascertain the veracity and
authenticity of the statements made in the
application provide enough opportunity to any
person who may be affected by issuance of
such a certificate.
15.15. If there is a serious dispute as regards the date
of death and or any other factors above, the
petition under sub-Section (3) of section 13
would have to be dismissed, directing the
parties to approach the appropriate Civil Court
for appropriate reliefs.
15.16. When a belated application is filed and if none
of the above details are provided and all the
parties are on record, the Magistrate cannot
perfunctorily refer the matter to Lok Adalat
without the consent of all parties, there being a
duty imposed upon the Magistrate to ascertain
the veracity and authenticity of the claims
made. It is only if all the above particulars are
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
provided and if all the parties who are going to
be affected by such an order are made parties
and if all of them agree for the matter to be
referred to Lok Adalat, can such matter be
referred to Lok Adalat. Only making the official
Respondent a party would not lead to an order
of reference to Lok Adalat, which the
Magistrates are well advised to look into.
15.17. The Lok Adalat cannot in a perfunctory manner
consider a memo filed by one of the parties and
direct the Registrar to act on the Memo without
compliance with sub-Section (3) of Section 13
of RBDA, 1969, the guidelines laid down in
MUNIYAMMA's case supra and that laid down
in the present matter.
15.18. Infact the Lok Adalat can only record the terms
of the compromise/settlement and no order of
direction can be issued by the Lok Adalat as
done in the present case. The holding of the
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
Lok Adalat is a mode and methodology of an
Alternative, faster and effective resolution of
disputes. The Lok Adalat by its functioning
improperly and acting in violation of applicable
law cannot give raise to more litigations.
15.19. Hence, I answer point No.3 by holding that the
order passed by Lok Adalat on the basis of a
unilateral memo without enquiry being
conducted as detailed hereinabove and as per
the guidelines laid down in MUNIYAMMA's
case is not sustainable in law.
16. GENERAL DIRECTIONS:
16.1. The above matter has arisen on account of the
suppression of material facts. It would
therefore be required that the possibility of
such suppression can be avoided and negated
by implementing a proper IT system by the
Registrar of Births and Deaths in association
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
with the Revenue Department. Whenever any
application is filed before the Registrar of births
and deaths of any particular person, the details
of all the properties which are standing in the
name of such person should be automatically
fetched from the database of the Sub-
Registrar's office and or the Revenue
Department and made available to the Registrar
of births and deaths.
16.2. The records available before any particular
hospital concerned with the birth and death
would also have to be integrated with the office
of the Registrar of births and deaths.
16.3. When an application is made, the identity
details, viz., the PAN card, Aadhaar card,
electoral voter ID card and such other identity
cards as may be available of such person
should be made available and details thereof to
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
be integrated with the database of the Registrar
of births and deaths.
16.4. The Principal Secretary, E-Governance
Department and the Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department, Director of
Municipal Administration are directed to look
into the above aspect and any other aspect that
may be relevant for consideration and develop
a detailed project plan within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and submit the said detailed project
report before this Court.
17. Answer to Point No.4: What order?
17.1. In view of my answers to point no.1 to 3, I pass
the following:
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
WP No. 54224 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The reliefs sought for are moulded.
(ii) The order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the
II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and
J.M.F.C. Tumkur in Crl.Misc.No.1134 of
2013, referring the matter to Lok Adalat is
quashed.
(iii) Consequently, the order of the Lok Adalat
dated 13.11.2013 directing the Deputy
Tahsildar to act as per the joint Memo and
closing the case is quashed.
(iv) The Death Certificate, dated 31.01.2014
issued by the Deputy Registrar in respect of
Smt.Honnamma indicating her date of
death to be 15.06.1975 at Annexure-E is
quashed.
(v) The matter is remitted to the II Additional
Civil Judge, J.M.F.C., Tumkur for fresh
consideration by making the petitioners as
parties to the said proceedings conducting
an enquiry as laid down hereinabove and as
per the decision of this Court in
MUNIYAMMA's case.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18407
HC-KAR
(vi) The Registrar Judicial is directed to forward
a copy of the judgment in
SMT.MUNIYAMMA AND OTHERS VS.
DEVEGOWDA AND OTHERS2 as also the
present order to all judges of the District
Judiciary who are handling matters relating
to the registration of births and deaths so
that the procedure laid down could be
followed by them.
(vii) The Registrar Judicial is also directed to
forward a copy of this order to the Hon'ble
Chairman, Karnataka Law Commission to
cause such amendment to Section 13 as
deemed fit by the Law Commission.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SS
ILR 2013 KAR 4703
