SHOBHA W/O SHAMBANAGOUD BYADAGI vs THE CHIEF REGISTRAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17516
WP No. 103038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020063182026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.103038 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHOBHA W/O. SHAMBANAGOUD BYADAGI,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. GOVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O. VTC MANNANGI, POST. KUNNIMELLILLI,
TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-581202.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SADIK KANVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,
HDMC ZONE-5, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.05.2025
ªÀ PÀ £ÀA 5/2025-26
BEARING NO.HDMC ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT,
Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS HDMC ZONE-5
DHARWAD PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C, DATED 07.05.2025
WHEREBY THE CORRECTION OF THE PETITIONER’S NAME IN HER
HUSBAND’S DEATH CERTIFICATE WAS REFUSED. II. ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR
DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CORRECT THE
PETITIONER’S NAME IN ANNEXURE-A THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF
HER HUSBAND FROM “NAYANA URF SHOBHA BHADAGI” TO “SHOBHA
BYADAGI” AND TO ISSUE THE CORRECTED DEATH CERTIFICATE
FORTHWITH. III. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS
HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17516
WP No. 103038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020063182026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the
following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction to quash the endorsement dated
07/05/2025 Bearing No.HDMC ªÀ PÀ £ÀA 5/2025-26 issued by
the respondent, The Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths
HDMC Zone-5 Dharwad produced at Annexure-C , dated
07.05.2025 whereby the correction of the petitioner’s
name in her husband’s death certificate was refused.
ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction directing the respondent to
correct the petitioner’s name in Annexure-A the death
certificate of her husband from “Nayana Urf Shobha
Bhadagi” to “shobha Byadagi” and to issue the corrected
death certificate forthwith.
iii. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.”
2. Heard, Sri.Sadik Kanvi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.G.I.Gacchhinamath, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17516
WP No. 103038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020063182026
3. Facts germane to file the present petition are as
under:
3.1 The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash
the endorsement issued at Annexure-C dated
07.05.2025 and a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to correct the petitioner’s name in the
Death Certificate from Nayana Urf Shobha Byadagi to
Shobha Byadagi.
3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that she is the legally
wedded wife of Shambanagoud Byadagi. Her
husband died on 08.06.2023. In the death certificate
at Annexure-A issued by the Authority on
26.11.2021, the name of the petitioner was shown as
Nayana Urf Shobha Byadagi instead of Shobha
Byadagi.
3.3 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application
for correction of her name under Section 15 of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17516
WP No. 103038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020063182026
the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths
Rules, 1999, enclosing identity proofs and
declarations of two credible persons. However,
despite the said application, no action has been
contemplated.
3.4 On the other hand, an endorsement came to be
issued stating that a Court decree is inevitable for
the purpose of correcting the name in the death
certificate.
4. Sri.Kanvi in support of his contention submits
that under Section 15 of the Act, 1969, the concerned
authorities are empowered to make corrections in the
entries of Death and Birth Certificates and that the suit is
not maintainable, as the same is barred under Section 9 of
the CPC, 1908. To buttress his argument, learned counsel
has relied on the judgment of this Court in RFA
No.2454/2024 disposed of on 18.07.2025.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17516
WP No. 103038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020063182026
5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA
No.2454/2024, while answering point No.1, held that a
suit is not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy
available under Section 15 of the Act, 1969. Having
answered the said question in the affirmative, this Court
proceeded to answer the other two questions and
accordingly, relegated the appellant/plaintiff therein, to
the concerned authorities to make an application under
Section 15 of the Act, 1969. The relevant paragraph
Nos.17, 18, 23, 24, 25 and 26, read as under:
“17. In light of the above legal position, 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. Although the authorities had
specifically raised this objection in their written
statement, the Trial Court unfortunately failed to examine
or give due weight to this fundamental jurisdictional bar.
It is settled law that the question of maintainability and
jurisdiction can be examined even at the appellate stage,
particularly where the bar is statutory and goes to the
root of the matter.
18. Accordingly, this Court holds that the suit itself was
not maintainable, and the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the same. Point No.1 is, therefore, answered in
the Affirmative.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17516
WP No. 103038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020063182026
23. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in
Prakash V. vs. The Registrar of Births and Deaths,
W.P. No.18803/2024, wherein this Court has
elaborated the scope of powers under Section 15 of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. It was held
that the Registrar's powers are not confined to clerical or
typographical errors but extend to substantive corrections
as well, provided adequate evidence is produced. The
Registrar, being a quasi-judicial authority, is empowered
to hold an enquiry, verify documents, and pass
appropriate orders in a time-bound and summary
manner. This Court reiterated that the Act provides an
efficacious alternative remedy, discouraging recourse to
Civil Courts in such matters. In light of this settled legal
position, it is held that the plaintiff must first exhaust the
remedy under Section 15 before approaching the Civil
Court.14. In light of the legal position enunciated by this
Court in the aforementioned decisions, and upon careful
examination of the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court, this Court finds no compelling reason to
interfere with the said judgment. The Trial Court has
rightly dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff
failed to produce cogent evidence and, more significantly,
sought a relief that falls outside the jurisdiction of a Civil
Court, given the special mechanism available under the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
24. However, considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it
appropriate to permit the plaintiff to avail the remedy
provided under Section 15 of the Act, 1969. The plaintiff
is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the
competent authority namely, respondent No.1 (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. in place of Smt. Latha B.,
and to clarify her relationship with Lokesh H.P.
25. If the procedure under the applicable Rules mandates
submission of the application through an online portal or
in a specific format, the plaintiff shall comply with such
requirements and file the application in the manner
prescribed. The plaintiff is further granted liberty to cite
the decisions of this Court in Sanjib Das and Another v.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17516
WP No. 103038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020063182026
The Commissioner and Another
(W.P.No.38423/2018 and Prakash V v. The
Registrar of Births and Deaths
(W.P.No.18803/2024), which categorically recognize
the power of the Registrar to make not only minor
corrections but also substantive change such as complete
replacement of names provided such changes are
supported by valid documents and justified by
circumstances.
26. In the event such an application is submitted,
respondent No.1 shall consider the same expeditiously
and in a sensitive manner, keeping in view the nature of
the grievance and the guiding principles laid down by this
Court in the aforementioned judgments. The authority
shall afford the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity of being
heard and shall pass a speaking order in accordance with
law.”
6. In view of the law laid down by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the aforesaid appeal, the
endorsement issued at Annexure-C dated 07.05.2025 is
not sustainable in law.
7. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed and the
endorsement is quashed.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17516
WP No. 103038 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020063182026
ii. A writ of mandamus is issued to the
respondent-Authority to consider the
application filed under Section 15 of the
Act, 1969 and pass an appropriate order
as expeditiously as possible, within an
outer limit of four weeks from today.
iii. List this matter on 30.11.2025 for
reporting compliance.
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
SRA
CT: UMD
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19