SRI. RAMAKRISHNAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53035
WP No. 27462 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010601372026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF SEPTEMBE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 27462 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O. S. SHIVASHANKARAN,
R/AT. OLD NO.27/3,
NEW NO. 16, VASUNDHARA APARTMENTS,
HINDI PRACHARASABHA STREET,
THYAGARAJANAGARA,
CHENNAI - 600 017.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K RAMA BHAT., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF SECRETARY,
ROOM NO 110, MS BUILDING,
GATE II, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU-560001.
2. ASSISTANT CHIEF REGISTRAR OF
BIRTHS AND DEATHS CUM
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53035
WP No. 27462 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010601372026
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (STATISTICS),
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
WEST ZONE, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU 560003.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAJAYOGA K., HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. SINCHANA M R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTION AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.05.2026 VIDE NO.
SA.NI.(SAM)PA/MA/PR/23/26-27 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner asserts a legacy under the Last
Will and Testament dated 08.05.2022 from Mrs.
Kamala Krishnamurthy, and the petitioner contends
that Mrs. Kamala Krishnamurthy is a Class-II legal
heir of Mr. S. Padmanabhan. The petitioner, based on
these assertions, has been seeking change in the
name of Mr. S. Padmanabhan's wife in the Register of
Birth. According to the petitioner, Mr. S.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53035
WP No. 27462 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010601372026
Padmanabhan's wife, who has also died, was known
as Mrs. Swarnam but she was affectionately called at
home as ‘Padma’, and the Register of Death records
her name as only ‘ Padma’ .
2. The petitioner's first effort to get the name
changed is with filing a representation for the change
followed by a Writ Petition in W.P.No.16835/2024
[GM-RES] which is decided on 05.08.2024 directing
the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to consider the
petitioner's representation in accordance with law
within a certain time frame. This first round of
exercise has not yielded any result, and the petitioner
has filed a suit in O.S.3914/2025 on the file of the
XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru [ the second round ] for declaration that Mr.
S. Padmanabhan's wife is known as ‘ Swarnam’ and
for mandatory injunction to the Chief Registrar of
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53035
WP No. 27462 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010601372026
Births and Deaths to rectify the entries in the register
and issue fresh Death Certificate.
3. The suit is partly decreed on 23.01.2026
with the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths being
duly represented, and after contest. The present writ
petition is the third round. After the decree in
O.S.No.3914/2025, the petitioner has filed a
representation only to be issued with the impugned
Endorsement dated 19.05.2026 [ Annexure-A ]
informing the petitioner that the change in the name
in the Register would be contrary to Section 15 of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 [for
short, ‘ the Act’ ]. This writ petition is the third round.
4. Mr. K. Rama Bhat, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Ms. Sinchana M.R., the learned
counsel who accepts notice for the second respondent
who has issued the impugned Endorsement, and Mr.
Rajayoga K., the learned High Court Government
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53035
WP No. 27462 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010601372026
Pleader who is called upon to accept notice for the
first respondent, are heard for disposal of the petition
in view of the following indisputable.
[A] The second respondent, despite referring to
the decree in O.S.No.3914/2025, has issued
the Endorsement opining that changing the
name of Mr. S. Padmanabhan's wife from
‘ Padma’ to ‘ Swarnam’ would be outside the
jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Act.
[B] The civil Court, after contest, has decreed
the suit in O.S.No.3914/2025 examining the
issue whether the petitioner [ the plaintiff in
the suit ] proves that the correct name of Mr.
S. Padmanabhan's wife is ‘Swarnam’. The
decree reads as under.
“It is ordered and decreed that the
suit of the plaintiff is decreed in
part.
It is further ordered, decreed and
declared that the name of wife of S.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53035
WP No. 27462 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010601372026
Padmananbhan is Smt. Swarnam
and not Padma.
It is further ordered and decreed
that however, the suit in respect of
the mandatory injunction is
dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff
to approach the defendant No.1 for
necessary corrections in the death
register of S. Padmanabhan to
replace the name of Padma with
Smt. Swarnam.
It is further ordered and decreed
that the defendant No.1 shall go by
the guidelines/principles laid down
in the decisions passed in
W.P.No.38423/2018 and
W.P.No.18803/2024 wherein it is
clearly held that the power of
Registrar under Section 15 of the
Registration of Births and Deaths
Act, 1969 extend even to replace the
name in such documents.”
5. The civil Court has rejected the
petitioner's request for mandatory injunction for
correction reserving liberty to the petitioner to
approach the competent authority for necessary
corrections consequent to the declaration and in the
light of the guidelines issued by this Court in
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53035
WP No. 27462 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010601372026
W.P.No.38423/2018 and W.P.No.18803/2024
observing that the guidelines refer to the expanse of
power under the Registration of Births and Deaths
Act, 1969 [ the Act]. The Section 15 of the Act enables
correction of an entry in the Register of Birth or
Death if it is shown to be erroneous in form or
substance or the entry is because of fraud. The
procedure for examining the afore is outlined in Rule
11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and
Deaths Rules, 1999 [ for short, ‘the Rules’ .]
6. These provisions provide for a statutory
mechanism to redress the errors made in entering the
details in the Register of Births and Deaths. In the
present case, the petitioner has availed the
jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 9 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which could have been
avoided given the statutory mechanism. It is possible
that the petitioner being exasperated has constrained
to invoke the larger jurisdiction. Be that as it may, it
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53035
WP No. 27462 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010601372026
would suffice for this Court to observe that the
second respondent could not have rejected the
application ignoring the decree of the civil Court, and
definitely not without extending an opportunity that
is inherent in the procedure contemplated under Rule
11 of the Rules.
7. Therefore, a case is made out for
interference. Further, this Court, in the
circumstances of the case, is of the view that because
the petitioner has the benefit of a decree of
declaration with a liberty, an enquiry would only be
an empty formality. As such, the second respondent
must be called upon to make necessary corrections
and issue fresh Death Certificate showing the name
of Sri S. Padmanabhan's wife as ‘ Swarnam’ . It would
be needless to observe that this outcome cannot have
any impact on any issues that could be around the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53035
WP No. 27462 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010601372026
legacy that is asserted by the petitioner. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
A. The petition is allowed. The second
respondent's Endorsement dated 19.05.2026
[ Annexure-A ] is quashed.
B. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a
certified copy of this order with the second
respondent within two [2] weeks from the
date of receipt thereof.
C. The second respondent is called upon to
carry out corrections and issue a fresh
Death Certificate with the correction showing
the name of Sri S. Padmanabhan's wife as
‘ Swarnam’ within six [6] weeks from the date
of receipt thereof.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
SA
Ct:sr