- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9204 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. GOVINDARAJU H., S/O LATE HULIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 2. SMT.HARIYAMMA, W/O LATE HULIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 3. SMT.AKKAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 4. RAMESH G., S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 5. MANJUNATHA G., S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT HULUGONAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 129. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.NAGAMMA W/O RAMAIAH.V.K, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI GOVINDARAJU V.R., S/O RAMAIAH.V.K, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 3. RAMESH V.R., S/O RAMAIAH V.K., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 4. SRINIVASMURTY V.R., S/O RAMAIAH V.K., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 5. RAMAMURTY V.R., S/O RAMAIAH V.K., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 6. CHIKKARAMAIAH S/O RAMAIAH V.K., AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 7. PUSHPALATHA W/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 8. GANGAMMA, W/O DIWAKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 9. THIMMAJAMMA, W/O HARISH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 10. SRINIVAS R.C., S/O CHIKKARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 11. ANITHA R.C., W/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT R.VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KOKILA G., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 528 BNNS, 2023 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2025 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI IN CRL.RP.NO.5019/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE -A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before the Court calling in question an order of the Court of Session dated 21-03-2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.5019 of 2024, whereby the Revisional Court sets aside the death certificate issued in favour of these petitioners and directs the Tahsildar to revoke the same. 2. Heard Sri Ravikumara B. R., learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Smt Kokila G, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: One Huliramaiah, said to be the father of petitioners 1 and 2 and Akkamma, the 3rd petitioner, file a petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 before the concerned Court in Crl. Misc. No.213 of 2019 seeking direction to the Tahsildar, Koratagere to issue death certificate of one Kyathappa. The concerned Court, by an order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 dated 26-11-2019, allows the petition so filed, directs death certificate to be issued in favour of these petitioners. The present respondents were not made parties to the said proceedings. On coming to know of the said death certificate being issued to Huliramaiah and Akkamma, being the legal heirs of Kyathappa, the respondents prefer a Criminal Revision Petition No.5019 of 2024 before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court hears both parties, sets aside the order of directing grant of death certificate in favour of the present petitioners and directs the Tahsildar to revoke the same, if it has been acted upon. This is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits though the petitioners and the respondents belong to the same family, they belong to two different trees. The genealogical tree that the petitioners had produced before the concerned Court was the one that was valid and death certificate is correctly issued in favour of Huliramaiah and Akkamma on the death of Kyathappa. The learned counsel submits that the Revisional Court has gone beyond its brief in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 observing about the title of the property even and has set at naught the reasoned order passed by the concerned Court directing grant of death certificate. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Smt Kokila appearing for the respondents would again take this Court through the documents appended to the revision petition to demonstrate that the petitioners have played fraud in depicting that they are the legal representatives of Kyathappa by producing a fabricated geneological tree, this is what is observed by the Revisional Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved or want to establish the title of the relationship with Kyathappa, it is open to them to knock at the doors of the Civil Court. The death certificate was obtained by fraud and therefore, the Revisional Court has appropriately set it aside. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned Counsel and have perused the material on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass, but borders upon obfuscative compass. The father of petitioners 1 and 2, one Huliramaiah and 3rd petitioner Akkamma, claiming to be the legal representatives of Kyathappa, apply for a death certificate of Kyathappa, who died on 04-06-1978 before the learned Magistrate in the year 2019. The Respondents were not made parties to the said list. The concerned Court, without even examining whether the death certificate could be granted to the respondents after about 40 years of the death, grants an order directing issuance of a death certificate in favour of these petitioners holding them to be the legal representatives of Kyathappa. The order of the learned Magistrate reads as follows: “…. …. …. 8. Point No.i: It is necessary to note that as per Section 13(3) of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, to register the date of death after the lapse of one year from the date of death, the order of jurisdictional Magistrate is necessary. For this purpose, Section 13(3) may be extracted as under : Section 13(3): Delayed registration of birth and death: any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be register only on an order made by a Magistrate of the First Class or the Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or the death and on payment of the prescribed fee. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 9. In the case of Smt. Muniyamma and others Vs/- Sri Devegowda and others, 2014 (1) Kar.L.J. 714, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has laid down following guidelines to be followed while passing order and the afore mentioned provisions as under : "17. Therefore the applicant has to state at least the following particulars in the application filed under Section 13(3) of the Act for entering the date of death : 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. ii) 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 person/persons, who are likely to be affected by the death register. v) The Magistrate can also direct the applicant to furnish such other particulars as he may deem fit to and proper in the circumstances of the case. 18. In 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 news papers, one of them should be in vernacular language, having wide circulation. The Magistrate 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 order thereon in accordance with law. If there is serious dispute with regard to the date of death, the Magistrate has to dismiss the petition with liberty to the party to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs." 10. Further in the case of Sri H. Subbarao Vs/- The L.I.C of India, Bengaluru and another, AIR 1976 KAR 231, it was held as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 "It is true that the entry in the register of births and deaths is not conclusive proof of 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." In this background when we perused the documents produced by petitioners, it shows that the respondent has issued non-availability certificate at Ex.P-1 stating that the date of death of Kyathappa S/o Late Ramaiah, is not entered in the register maintained by him. At Ex.P-2 genealogical tree and Ex.P-3 RTC extract are produced. At Ex.P-4 & 5 two paper publications are produced. In the petition it is stated that the death certificate is required for changing revenue records and for bonafide use. The petitioners have complied the aforesaid guidelines and in the absence of any objections raised by the respondent or objectors regarding date of death, there is no ground to disbelieve the case of PW-1. Therefore considering the law of point, it is just and proper to allow this petition only on the evidence given by the PW-1. Hence, I hold this point in the 'Affirmative'. 11. Point No.ii: In view of above reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 13(3) of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 is hereby allowed. The respondent is directed to register the date of death of Kyathappa s/o Late Ramaiah occurred on 04.06.1978 at Hulugonahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, Tumakuru District, in the register maintained by him and to issue death certificates accordingly after collecting necessary late fee from the petitioners.” The order, except quoting two judgments of the coordinate bench of this Court, does not bear even a semblance of application of mind, but the death certificate is issued on the score that Huliramaiah and Akkamma are the two are the legal - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 representatives of Kyathappa. The respondents were not aware of the said proceeding, as they were not made parties. After about 5 years they come to know about the order of grant of death certificate holding the two as legal representatives and challenge it before the Revisional Court. Revisional Court permits challenge by grant of leave and answers it on its merit. The reasons so rendered by the Revisional Court is as follows: “…. …. …. 9. I have heard the counsel for revision petitioners and respondents and perused materials on record. The points that arise for my consideration is:- 1] Whether the Revision Petitioners have made grounds to set aside the order dated 26.11.2019 in Crl.Mise.No.213/2109 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC. Court, Koratagere, ? 2] What order, ? 10. My answer to the above said point is as under:- 1. Point No.1 : In the Affirmative; 2. Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:- -:REASONS:- 11. POINT NO.1:- In the case on hand, it is relevant to observe the contention raised by the revision petitioners in the matter. Their grievance is that impugned order obtained by Huliramaiah under whom the respondent No.1 and 2 claiming right and Akkamma playing fraud by concealing material facts before the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 Court. According to present petitioners Huliramaiah and Akkamma with intention to grab the property belongs to Kyathappa obtained order from the Learned Magistrate seeking direction to Thasildar to issue death certificate of Kyathappa stating that Kyathappa died on 04.06.1978. According to said Huliramaiah and Akkamma deceased Kyathappa died issue less; but according to present petitioners they are grand children of Kyathappa through his son V.K.Ramaiah. Suppressing these materials respondents obtained order from the trial Court. 12. Though trial Court passed order directing the Thasildar to issue death certificate of Kyathappa we cannot comment on the order passed by the trial Court because trial Court passed order based on the materials produced by the respondents herein. Whether said materials are false materials or not to be decided by this Court because present petitioner and respondents were not party before the trial Court. Without respondents, the petitioners approached trial Court for death certificate of Kyathappa. Hence in the trial Court records we cannot search for any materials in favour of the present petitioners; otherwise case has to be decided on the basis of materials furnished before this Court in the revision petition and the documents furnished by the respondents before the trial Court. 13. In this petition the petitioners produced two RTC extract i.e in respect of Sy.No.36/3A and Sy.No.1/5. These RTC extracts are pertaining to the year 1967 onwards. The said land stands in the name of Kyathappa S/o Ramanna @ Ramaiah. Said land situated at Gantiganahalli Village Kasaba Hobli, Koratagere Taluk. They produced 2 school records pertaining to one V.K.Ramaiah. This school records issued by the Government High School and Government Pre University College, Koratagere. As per this document V.K.Ramaiah is son of Kyathappa. As per this document V.K.Ramaiah admitted to school in the year 1967-68 and 1969-70. As per these documents address of V.K.Ramaiah is R.Venkatapura, Akkirampura post, Koratagere Taluk. The property in Sy.No.36/3A and Sy.No.1/5 situated in Gantiganahalli Village, Koratagagere Taluk. According to petitioners they are wife and children of V.K.Ramaiah. To support the same they filed family tree of Kyathappa. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 14. As per family tree furnished by the petitioners Kyathappa and Gangamma are children of Ramaiah and Puttamani. Gangamma died issu less. Kyathappa had two children V.K.Ramiaiah and Chikkaramaiah. The petitioners No.1 to 5 are children of V.K.Ramaiah, petitioner No.6 is Chikkaramaiah who is son of Kyathappa. According to petitioners and their family tree furnished by them they are grand children of Kyathappa. But as per the contested respondents who are petitioners before the trial Court said Kyathappa died issue less and he was unmarried person. In the petition before the trial Court they have stated Kyathappa son of V.K.Ramaiah died on 04.06.1978 and he died issue less. According to them the petitioners/present respondents are children of Kyathappa’s elder brother Venkatappa. 15. In support of their contention they furnished one family tree Ex.P.2. As per this family tree one Ramaiah and Thimmakka had two children namely Venkatappa and Kyathappa. Kyathappa died issue less. Huliramaiah and wife of Govindappa the Akkamma were petitioners before the trial Court seeking death certificate of Kyathappa. According to Ex.P.2 Huliramaiah and Govindappa succeeded property left by Kyathappa as they are sons of Kyathappa’s brother Venkatappa. But as per family tree furnished before this Court by the petitioners who are claimed to be the grand children of Kyathappa are grandchildren of Kyathappa. The said Ex.P.2 is not correct document because Kyathappa is married person and his wife is Akkamma. And his sister Gangamma died issue less. V.K.Ramaiah and Chikkaramaiah are children of Kyathappa. Now there is a dispute whether Kyathappa died issue less or died leaving behind the present petitioners. According to petitioners in Crl.Mise.No.213/2019 he died issue less. But according to present petitioners Kyathappa died leaving behind his two sons. The documents furnished by the petitioners before this Court i.e. school records shows that V.K.Ramiaha is son of Kyathappa. Address in the records shows V.K.Ramaiah was resident of Koratagere Taluk. This document is pertaining to V.K.Ramaiah when he was minor. From the same we can gather that Kyathappa is also resident of Akkirampura, Koratagere Taluk. So it shows that property stands in the name of Kyathappa and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 place of Kyathappa shown in the school record Akkirampura, Koratagere Taluk. Hence there is strong ground to believe the contention of the petitioners that Kyathappa died leaving behind wife and sons. He died after marriage leaving behind his children V.K.Ramaiah and Chikkaramaiah. 16. During the course of arguments it is contention of the respondents that V.K.Ramaiah stated by the petitioners herein and V.K.Ramaiah stated by the contesting respondents are not one and the same and they are two different persons. But said contention is without any basis. The petitioners herein are produced certain materials to show that a person by name Kyathappa was resident of Koratagere and his wife is Akkamma. Said Kyathappa died leaving behind V.K.Ramaiah and Chikkaramaiah. The property stated about stands in the name of Kyathappa son of Ramaiah. In the family trees produced by the present petitioners as well as the respondents shows Kyathappa is son of Ramaiah. Hence I feel the person named in RTC extract Kyathappa and person stated by the petitioners in school records of V.K.Ramaiah and person by name Kyathappa stated in the family tree by the petitioners and respondents before the trial Court is one and the same. There is no materials to believe or presume the contention of the respondents that Kyathappa stated by them is a different person. 17. I have also pointed out the documents to disbelieve the contention of the respondents herein. In the Ex.P.2 family tree produced by the respondents before the trial Court mother’s name of Kyathappa stated as Thimmakka i.e. Ramaiah’s wife name is stated as Thimmakka. The petitioners furnished family tree of Kyathappa and as per their family tree Ramaiah’s wife name ie mother’s name of Kyathappa is Puttamanni and not Thimmakka. Likewise the respondents herein also during the course of arguments furnished one more family tree of Kyathappa. The said family tree furnished by the respondents herein was prepared by notary at the instance of information given by Govindaraju respondent No.1 who is son of original petitioner No.1 Huliramaiah. As per this family tree Venkatappa and Kyathappa are children of Ramaiah. In the said family tree Kyathappa’s - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 mother's name if stated as Veeranagamma. According to respondents Veeranagamma is mother of Kyathappa and not Thimmakka. But very same respondents i.e. Huliramaiah furnished family tree as per Ex.P.2 stating that Ramaiah’s wife's name is Thimmakka not as Veeranagamma. So it shows that respondents are not certain about mother of Kyathappa. This is one of the circumstances to doubt the information given by the respondents while they obtain death certificate of Kyathappa. 18. I have also one more reason to doubt the case of the respondents. The respondents before the trial Court while filing petition to issue death certificate of Kyathappa stated Kyathappa died on 04.06.1978. The petitioners herein furnished tow registered documents. First one is registered sale-deed dated 26.06.1970. Under the said document Akkamma wife of Kyathappa and V.K.Raamaiah son of Kyathappa sold certain properties under registered sale-deed. In the said sale-deed it is stated Akkamma wife of Late Kyathappa and V.K.Ramaiah son of Kyathappa. These document shows Kyathappa died prior to 1970. But according to respondents herein Kyathappa died on 04.06.1978. Information given by the respondents before the trial Court is not acceptable because information in the registered sale-deed which was executed in the year 1970 stating that Kyathappa died prior to 1970. This shows that respondents without material particulars obtained order from the trial Court. The present petitioners also furnished one more document a sale-deed executed in favour of one Kalamma by Akkamma and V.K.Ramaiah. Said sale-deed executed on 13.02.1973. In the said sale-deed also it is stated Akkamma wife of Late Kyathappa, V.K.Ramaiah son of Kyathappa. From this document also we can say that Kyathappa died prior to 1973 and 1970. Once again this document shows information given by the respondents before the trial Court is not correct. These two documents i.e. sale-deeds executed in the year 1970 and 1973 by Akkamma and V.K.Ramaiah shows that Kyathappa resident of Huligonahalli Village, Koratagere Taluk died leaving behind wife Akkamma and children V.K.Ramaiah and Chikkaramaiah. In the sale-deed dated 13.02.1973 it is stated Chikkaramaiah is minor son of Kyathappa. If these documents are taken into consideration we can say - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 that the contention of the petitioners herein is more probable than the contentions of the respondents. 19. I have also one more reason to accept the contention of the petitioners herein that respondents herein while filing petition before the trial Court to obtain death certificate of Kyathappa have stated Kyathappa died in Hulugonahalli Village. Two documents furnished by the present petitioners sale-deed dated 13.02.1973 and 26.06.1970 show that Akkamma is wife of Kyathappa resident of Hulugonahalli Village, Koratagere Taluk. This document in crystal clear terms falsifies the contention of the respondents that Kyathappa died without marriage. Otherwise these documents shows Kyathappa died leaving behind wife and two children. If above said circumstances and documents are taken into consideration there is substance and truthfulness in the case of petitioners herein. It shows that respondents furnished false information and materials before the trial Court and obtained order from the Learned Magistrate to enter the death of Kyathappa in the register maintained by the Thasildar and to issue death certificate of Kyathappa. No-doubt said death certificate will not affecting right of the petitioners herein in the property left by Kyathappa; but it shows that respondents have made attempt to grab the properties belongs to Kyathappa. Transactions by the respondents in respect of property left by Kyathappa is subject matter of civil dispute and proceedings before the civil Court. Either this Court or Learned Magistrate cannot express any opinion on the said aspect. But the order obtained by the respondents under the impugned order is nothing but product of false information given by the respondents. Hence same is liable to set aside. 20. After considering the above said aspects, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have made sufficient grounds to believe that Kyathappa died leaving behind his wife and children. The respondents by furnishing false information before the Learned Magistrate obtained death certificate of Kyathappa, same is not in accordance with law as the same is product of false information and liable to set aside. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is deserves to allow. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 21. POINT NO.2:- In view of answer to point No.1, I proceed to pass following:- -:ORDER:- The Criminal Revision Petition No.5019/2024 filed by the revision petitioner under section 423 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is herewith allowed. The order dated 26.11.2019 in C.Mise.No.213/2019 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Court, Koratagere is herewith set aside. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Thasildar to revoke the death certificate issued by the Thasildar in respect of death of deceased Kyathappa obtained by Huliramaiah and Akkamma. Office is directed to send back the trial Court records along with the copy of the order to the concerned Court.” The Revisional Court by rendering cogent reasons as quoted hereinabove, holds that the said order has been passed in favour of Huliramaiah and Akkamma, treating them as legal representatives of Kyathappa, perfunctorily without examination of any records. The death certificate granted to these petitioners on the score that they are legal representatives undoubtedly has given them a right to claim the benefits of the said death certificate being the legal - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33283 CRL.P No. 9204 of 2025 representatives of Kyathappa. Therefore, there is no warrant of interference with the order passed by the Revisional Court. 8. Leaving open to the petitioners or to the respondents to avail of the remedy before the competent Civil Court to establish their rights, if any is left to be established, the petition stands dismissed. Interim order if any operating shall stand dissolved. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3