Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit seeking correction of a death certificate. The Court held that such relief falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Births and Deaths under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and not within the purview of a Civil Court. The Court directed that the plaintiff be relegated to approach the competent authority for rectification as per the statutory mechanism.

The matter arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking correction of his mother’s name in a death certificate issued by the authorities. The plaintiff claimed that his mother’s name had been erroneously recorded and sought a declaration to reflect the correct name as "Smt. Mallika B.V." instead of "Smt. Latha B." along with a declaration that she was the wife of Lokesh H.P.

Also Read: Supreme Court Flags Regulatory Failure | Says Power Sector Cannot Operate On “Perpetual Revenue Gaps” | Directs Time-Bound Recovery Of ₹27,000 Crore Regulatory Asset Within Seven Years

The suit was filed before the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No.1935/2022. After permitting both sides to lead evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on 01.10.2022. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to examine any competent official witness from the concerned hospital to establish that the name discrepancy was due to an error on the part of the hospital. It was further held that the burden of proof was not discharged.

Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Regular First Appeal No.2454 of 2024 before the High Court of Karnataka. The appellant’s counsel contended that the Trial Court had erred in dismissing the suit and urged for a direction to the defendants to issue a corrected death certificate. The respondents, represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate, opposed the appeal. They argued that the suit was barred under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Rule 7 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, and that Section 15 of the 1969 Act provided the exclusive remedy.

Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, empowers the Registrar to correct or cancel entries in the register if found erroneous in form or substance, or if made fraudulently or improperly. The respondents contended that the Act is a special statute providing a complete mechanism for rectification of such records, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted the relief sought in the plaint and stated: "On a perusal of the reliefs sought in the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff seeks a direction for correction of the Death Certificate by substituting the name of his mother as Smt. Mallika B.V. in place of Smt. Latha B."

The Court extracted Section 15 of the 1969 Act and observed: "The statute confers exclusive authority on the Registrar to carry out inquiries and effect corrections or cancellations of entries relating to births and deaths as recorded in the official registers maintained under the Act." It recorded that any correction sought in relation to such entries "squarely falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 15 of the Act."

The Court further stated: "It is a well-established principle of law that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, though wide and plenary in nature, can be expressly or impliedly excluded by the Legislature by enacting a special law that provides for a specific remedy before a designated authority."

Referring to the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, the Court observed: "The civil court lacks jurisdiction where a special statute provides not only the right but also the remedy, including the forum, for its enforcement."

It was noted that: "The intent of the Legislature behind Section 15 of the 1969 Act must also be appreciated in context... to facilitate a quick and efficient rectification process without burdening the Civil Courts."

The Court relied on earlier decisions, including Sanjib Das and Another v. The Commissioner and Another (W.P. No.8423/2018) and Prakash V. v. The Registrar of Births and Deaths (W.P. No.18803/2024), which recognised that the Registrar’s powers extend to substantive corrections, not limited to clerical errors.

Also Read: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds State Law On Private School Fee Regulation | Individual Hardship No Ground To Challenge Vires As Court Backs State’s Power To Prevent Profiteering

The Court held: "This Court holds that the suit itself was not maintainable, and the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same." It dismissed the appeal and directed: "The plaintiff is relegated to pursue the statutory remedy available under the Act, 1969."

It granted liberty to the plaintiff to file an appropriate application before the Registrar of Births and Deaths seeking rectification of the entry in the Death Certificate to reflect the correct name of his mother as Smt. Mallika B.V. The Court stated that if the applicable Rules require the application to be filed online or in a specific format, the plaintiff shall comply with such requirements.

It further directed: "In the event such an application is submitted, respondent No.1 shall consider the same expeditiously and in a sensitive manner... The authority shall afford the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity of being heard and shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Sri. Vyshak P.N., Advocate for Sri. Bhargava D Bhat, Advocate

For the Respondents: Smt. Hemalatha V, AGA; Sri. B.S. Satyanand, Advocate

Case Title: Suhas L. v. The Chief Registrar Births and Deaths & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:27031

Case Number: RFA No.2454 of 2024

Bench: Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum