Civil Suit Seeking Corrections In Birth/Death Certificate Not Maintainable: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

11 Aug 2025 3:15 PM IST

  • Civil Suit Seeking Corrections In Birth/Death Certificate Not Maintainable: Karnataka High Court

    The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil suit for seeking rectification of entries in a Death Certificate is not maintainable.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “This Court is of the considered view that the present suit, filed before the Civil Court seeking rectification of entries in the Death Certificate, is not maintainable. There exists a clear bar under Section 9 of the CPC,...

    The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil suit for seeking rectification of entries in a Death Certificate is not maintainable.

    Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “This Court is of the considered view that the present suit, filed before the Civil Court seeking rectification of entries in the Death Certificate, is not maintainable. There exists a clear bar under Section 9 of the CPC, as the nature of the relief falls exclusively within the domain of the Registrar under Section 15 of the 1969 Act (Registration of Births And Deaths Act)."

    The petitioner Suhas L had approached the court challenging an order passed by the trial court which had dismissed his suit seeking a direction against the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths, to rectify the name of his mother as recorded in the Death Certificate. He had sought a direction to the authorities to substitute the name of his mother as Mallika B.V. in place of Latha B. Additionally, sought a declaration to the effect that Mallika B.V. is the lawful wife of Lokesh H.P. The Trial Court had found that the plaintiff had not discharged the burden of proof. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

    Before the High Court, the respondents contended that the suit was not maintainable before a Civil Court. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred in view of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Rule 7 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. Reliance was also placed on Rules 7 and 11 of the said Rules and Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. It was submitted that the appropriate authority under the Act is vested with the power to correct errors in Birth and Death Certificates, and therefore, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction.

    The bench referred to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and said, “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. Section 15 of the Act specifically empowers the Registrar to correct errors or cancel entries in the register if such entries are found to be erroneous in form or substance, or were made fraudulently or improperly.”

    It added “The provision contemplates a mechanism through which rectification of such records may be sought by the aggrieved person, and such correction is to be carried out by the statutory functionary designated under the Act, not by a Civil Court.”

    Following which, it held “The plaintiff's grievance, being one that directly pertains to a correction in the official record of a death, is thus within the domain of the Registrar and not amenable to adjudication by a Civil Court.”

    It was emphasised that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, is a special statute that not only provides for the maintenance of birth and death records but also sets out a comprehensive procedure for correction of errors through the Registrar under Section 15. Rules 7 and 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 makes it abundantly clear that a special mechanism is provided to address such grievances.

    The court said “The civil court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction where a special statute provides not only the right but also the remedy, including the forum, for its enforcement.”

    Dismissing the appeal the court said “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.”

    Appearance: Advocates Vyshak P N, Bhargava D Bhat for Appellant.

    AGA Hemalatha V for R.1 TO R.3.

    Advocate B.S Satyanand FOR R.2.

    Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 265

    Case Title: Suhas L AND The Chief Registrar Births And Deaths & Others

    Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2454 OF 2024

    Click Here To Read Order

    Next Story