Delhi District Court
Kewal Kishor Gulati vs The State on 9 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANAV JOSHI, ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE OF CENTRAL DISTRICT AT TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 147/2020
CNR No. DLCT030003292020
In the matter of:-
Sh. Kewal Kishor Gulati,
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati,
R/o 42A, DDA Flats,
Vikrant Enclave, Mayapuri,
New Delhi-110064. ...Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. State,
Through District Collector (South West),
Kapashera, New Delhi.
2. South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Through its Commissioner,
Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Marg,
Civic Center, Near Minto Road,
Delhi-110006.
3. Sh. Naresh Kumar,
S/o Krishan Lal Gulati,
R/o C-187, WZ 368,
Hari Nagar Clock Tower,
New Delhi-110064.
4. Ms. Ramesh Kumari @ Sneh Lata,
W/o Sh. Darshan Lal Bajaj,
R/o 1-E41, NIT,
Faridabad, Haryana-121001.
5. Sh. Deepak Chhaudha,
S/o Lt. Sudesh Kumari,
R/o T-1897A, Faiz Road,
CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 1 of 15
Near Naaz Cinema, Ashoka Pahari,
Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005.
6. Sh. Rajan Chhaudha,
S/o Lt. Sudesh Kumari,
R/o T-1897A, Faiz Road,
Near Naaz Cinema, Ashoka Pahari,
Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005.
7. Ms. Rakhi Gulati,
D/o Late Sudesh Kumari,
W/o Sh. Kapil Gulati,
R/o 903, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
New Delhi-110009.
8. Ms. Pravesh Kumari @ Rashmi Jolly,
W/o Harbans Lal Jolly,
R/o 1885, Sector 4,
Near water tank, Gurgaon,
Haryana-122001.
9. Ms. Neelam,
W/o Jagdish Kumar,
R/o 372, Bhim Nagar,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. ...Defendants
Date of Institution : 17.01.2020
Reserved for Judgment : 08.08.2024
Date of Decision : 09.09.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff herein seeking thereby a declaration that Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati, son of the plaintiff, be declared dead and further direction to defendants to issue death certificate of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati.
2. The brief facts of the case relevant to the present adjudication are that the Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati is the father of CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 2 of 15 the plaintiff and defendant No.3, 4, 8 and 9, and grandfather of defendant No. 5 to 7. That Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati was residing with his family at C-187 WZ 368, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. That Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati got married to Smt. Oma Wanti and out of their wedlock, they had two sons and four daughters, namely, Sh. Naresh Gulati, Sh. Kewal Kishor Gulati, Ms. Ramesh Kumari @ Sneh Lata, Ms. Parvesh Kumari @ Rashmi Jolly, Ms. Sudesh Kumari and Ms. Neelam. That wife of Sh. Kewal Krishan Lal Gulati has expired on 28.05.1998 and one of the daughters of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati namely Smt. Sudesh Kumari also expired on 27.10.1996 leaving behind Sh. Deepak Chhaudha, Sh. Rajan Chhaudha and Ms. Rakhi Gulati as legal heirs. That Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati was working with Western Air Command, Indian Air Force as LDC and has retired from the job on 01.05.1982. That Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati went missing from his home at 4:00 pm on 25.02.1989 and accordingly, the legal heirs of Sh. Kishan Lal Gulati lodged a police complaint at Police Station Hari Nagar on 01.03.1989 vide DD No. 24A.
3. It is further averred that since the day i.e. 25.02.1989 Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati went missing, his whereabouts is not known to the legal heirs of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati. The plaintiff along defendants tried to search Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati but till date nothing has been heard about him either by the plaintiff and the defendants or by the near relative of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati. That even the police had tried its level best to trace Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati but nothing fruitful came to the hands of the police and ultimately, police filed untrace report on 14.03.2018. That the plaintiff along defendants and near relatives had tried their level best to search for Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati but till date CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 3 of 15 whereabouts of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati but till date his whereabouts are not known. That on the basis of the police complaint and other relevant documents, the department has transferred the pension of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati to his wife namely, Smt. Oma Wanti. That Smt. Oma Wanti expired on 28.05.1998 and after her death, the said pension was stopped. That more than seven years have been elapsed and whereabouts of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati is not known and as per section 108 Indian Evidence Act, the person who is missing for more than seven years is to be treated as dead.
4. It is further averred that the plaintiff alongwith defendant No. 2 to 8 has approached defendant No.1 on various occasion for issuance of death certificate of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati but on each and every occasion defendant No.1 has refused to issue the same on the ground that the plaintiff has to approach the Court for seeking declaration in respect of death of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati and that the death certificate would be issued only after the Court order. Hence the present suit. The plaintiff has prayed, inter alia, for the followings reliefs:
" A. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to pass decree of declaration in favor of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 & 2 declaring Sh.
Krishan Lal Gulati, S/o Lt. Sh. Bodh Raj Gulati, R/o C-187, WZ 368, Hari Nagar, New Delhi as dead being missing for more seven years.
B. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may e kind enough to pass decree of Mandatory Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.1, directing defendant No.1 & 2 to issue death certificate of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati, S/o Lt. Sh. Bodh Raj Gulati, R/o C-187, WZ 368, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
Award cost of the suit in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 4 of 15 Any other order of relief in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendantsas may be appropriate in the acts and circumstances of the case."
5. On 17.02.2020, the plaintiff has withdrawn the present suit qua defendant No. 3 to 9 and the suit was continued against defendant No. 1 and 2 only.
6. Defendant No. 1 did not contest the present suit. Defendant No. 2, upon service of the summons, entered appearance and written statement was filed on its behalf. It is stated in the written statement filed by defendant No. 2 that as per birth and death certificate guidelines issued by Home Ministry, if a person is untraceable for a period of more than seven years, such person is deemed to be dead and if appropriate order is obtained from competent Court of law, then in that case death certificate can be issued.
7. Vide order dated 28.04.2023, the followings issues were framed:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory Injunction as prayed in the plaint? OPP
3. Relief"
8. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint. He relied upon the following documents:
(i) Copy of Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
(ii) Copy of PAN Card Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
(iii) Copy of Death Certificate of Om Wati Ex.PW1/3
(OSR).
CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 5 of 15
(iv) Certificate issued by headquarter W.C.A.
Ex.PW1/4(OSR).
(v) Copy of police complaint dated 01.03.1989
Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
(vi) Application dated 29.01.2018 sent DCP West,
Rajouri Garden Ex.PW1/6.
(vii) Copy of reply dated 14.03.2018 Ex.PW1/7(OSR).
(viii) Copy of pension book issued by Indian Air force Ex.PW1/8(OSR).
(ix) Copy of newspaper Hindustan Times dated 09.08.1993 Ex.PW1/9 (OSR).
(x) Legal Notice of Section 80 CPC dated 24.09.2019 Ex.PW1/11.
PW1 was cross-examined only on behalf of defendant No.2/MCD.
9. Plaintiff also examined ACP Satyender Kumar Singh, SHO PS Hari Nagar who deposed that the record pertaining to the police complaint could not be produced as the complaint registers upto 31.12.2018 had been weeded out. The report of Additional Deputy Commissioner in this regard was exhibited as Ex. PW2/1.
10. The plaintiff has also summoned the record pertaining to application made to DCP dated 29.01.2018. Upon the summons, ASI Arvind has submitted copy of order No. 6206- 26/Complt. West District. (DA-VI) dated 03.06.2022 as per which the complaint registers upto 31.12.2018 had been weeded out and thus, the summoned record could not be produced.
11. No evidence was led on behalf of defendant No. 2 and accordingly, the defendants' evidence was closed on 08.08.2024.
12. I heard the arguments advanced and perused the CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 6 of 15 record.
Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed in the plaint? OPP
13. Onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The jurisdiction of a civil court to grant declaratory relief flows from section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under:
" 34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right .
-- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Explanation.--A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."
Strictly speaking, the relief as to declaration of civil death does not fall withing the purview of section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, since generally neither it relates to the legal character or right as to property of the person seeking such declaration nor can the civic authorities be said to be interested to deny such character or right. Moreover, such declaration is generally sought without seeking any further relief. However, it is no more res integra that section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not exhaustive of all kinds of declaratory reliefs and that a declaratory suit can still be maintained which may not fall within its purview. In Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy v. Konduru Seshu Reddy, AIR 1967 SC 436, It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"The legal position is also well-established that the CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 7 of 15 worshipper of a Hindu temple is entitled, in certain circumstances, to bring a suit for declaration that the alienation of the temple properties by the de jure Shebait is invalid and not binding upon the temple. if a Shebait has improperly alienated trust property a suit can be brought by any person interested for a declaration that such alienation is not binding upon the deity but no decree for recovery of possession can be made in such a suit unless the plaintiff in the suit has the present right to the possession. Worshippers of temples are in the position of cestuui que trustent or beneficiaries in a spiritual sense (See Vidhyapurna Thirthaswami v. Vidhyanidhi Thirthanswami). Since the worshippers do. not exercise the deity's power of suing to protect its own interests, they are not entitled to recover possession of the property improperly alienated by the Shebait, but they can be granted a declaratory decree that the alienation is not binding on the deity (See for example, Kalyana Venkataramana Ayyangar v. Kasturiranga Ayyangar(4) and Chidambaranatha Thambiran v. Nallasiva Mudaliar). It has also been decided by the Judicial Committee in Abdur Rahim v. Mahomed Barkat Ali that a suit for a declaration that property belongs to a wakf can be maintained by Mahomedans interested in the wakf without the sanction of the Advocate-General, and a declaration can be given in such a suit that the plaintiff is not bound by the compromise decree relating to wakf properties. In our opinion, s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and th e courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the section. It follows, therefore, in the present case that the suit of the plaintiff for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on the deity is maintainable as falling outside the purview of s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act."
It was further observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that declaratory reliefs falling outside Specific Relief Act may fall under the general provisions of Civil Procedure Code, like section 9 or Order VII Rule 7 CPC. This was reiterated in General Films Exchange Ltd. v. H.H. Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo, AIR 1975 SC 1810, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court:
" In Sheoparsan Singh & Ors. case (supra), what was really held by the Privy Council was that a grant of probate under the Probate and Administration Act (V of 1881), which operated as a judgment in rem, could not be collaterally assailed by a suit for a declaration brought by reversioners seeking to question the will. Sir Lawrence Jenkins who had, incidentally, decided Deokali Koer's case (supra) too said (at p. 97):
CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 8 of 15 "It is not suggested that in this litigation the testamentary jurisdiction is, or can be, invoked, and yet there can be no doubt that this suit is an attempt to evade or annul the adjudication in the testamentary suit, and nothing more."
We think that the decision in this case also does not assist the appellant much.
In Bai Shri Vaktuba's case (supra), the Bombay High Court held that a Talukdar plaintiff could bring a suit for a declaration and an injunction to restrain the defendant from claiming that he was the plaintiff's son. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, relied upon the following passage from it (at p. 650):
"It has long been established that the general power vested in the Courts in India under the Civil Procedure Code to entertain all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is barred by any enactment for the time being in force, does not carry with it the general power of making declarations except in so far as such power is expressly conferred by statute."
Kishori Lal's case (supra) was cited to show that declaratory decrees falling outside Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act are not permissible because Section 42 Specific Relief Act is exhaustive on this subject. This view must be held to have been rejected by this Court when it declared in Veruareddi Rmaranghava Reddy & Ors. v. Konduru Seshu Reddy & ors (1) (at p. 277) "In our opinion, S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the section It follows, therefore, in the present case that the suit of the plaintiff for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on the deity is maintainable as falling outside the purview of S.. 42 of the Specific Relief Act".
The result is that Section 42 merely gives statutory recognition to a well-recognised type of declaratory relief and subjects it to a limitation, but it cannot be deemed to exhaust every kind of declaratory relief or to circumscribe the jurisdiction of Courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside Section 42."
Therefore, section 34 of Specific Relief Act cannot be not held to be the sole repository of the cases in which declaratory decrees may be made and the Courts have the power CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 9 of 15 to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the section, and such declarations can be granted even though no consequential relief is capable of being granted.
14. Further, there are judicial precedents to hold that a suit for declaration of civil death of a person unheard of for more than seven years is maintainable. In Swati & Others V.s Abhay & Others, MANU/MH/0334/2016, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held such a suit to be maintainable. The relevant observation are as under:
" 7. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court as above, I am of the firm opinion that the Civil Court acting under Section 9, has inherent powers in its plenary jurisdiction de hors with reference to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act to grant relief qua Section 108 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the reason that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act was required to be called in aid does not appear to be sound."
In Alka Sharma v. Union of India & Others, MANU/UP/0209/2020, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of civil death of her husband. The Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had dismissed the suit. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, while passing decree in second appeal, held as under :
"16. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no hesitation in my mind to hold that the courts below have failed to act judiciously and in accordance with the provisions of law and have unnecessarily entered into those grey areas which are not subject matter of any dispute and in regard to which no dispute was raised depicting limited extent of their judicial knowledge and capability to appreciate and deal with the facts of the case. Since, Union of India was a party, it was represented through out, and it was not the case of the Union that any objection was filed by any of the relatives of Sri Govind Prasad Sharma so to the claim put-forth by the applicant or to the effect that she was not entitled to the residence allotted to Sri Govind Prasad Sharma in her official capacity, there was sufficient plethora of evidence to the effect that the presumption should have been drawn as to the civil death of Sri Govind Prasad Sharma as twin requirements of law as laid down in Sections CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 10 of 15 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act about declaration of a civil death were fulfilled. There is no requirement of final report from the police to draw a presumption under Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act. As far as final report is concerned, Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with report of police officer on completion of investigation. Section 173(2) does not prescribed any time limit for completion of investigation and further Section 173(8) only provides for further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Further, the law prescribes that in case the Magistrate is inclined to accept the final report and decides to drop the charges against the accused, then only notice to the complainant is necessary. In case, cognizance is taken by the Magistrate on a report submitted by the police under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C., then no notice is required to be served on the complainant. In case of Pramod Behl vs. State of Jharkhand, 2004 Crl. L. J NOC 362 (Jhar), though it has been held that where the police after investigation files final report, copy of final report would be given to the informant and opportunity of hearing shall also be given to him.
17. In the light of the above discussion, the courts below committed serious error in law, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice to the appellant and which is corrected now.
18. In view of the aforesaid, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in negative and it is held that submission of the final report by the police is not mandatory inasmuch as police investigation is in the domain of criminal law and that is neither influenced by the plaintiff claiming such declaration nor is within the authority and control of the plaintiff seeking such declaration. Once the factum of lodging a report and not hearing about that person for seven years or more is proved and admitted by the defendant employer of the husband in regard to whom declaration is being sought, is sufficient to hold that requirement of Section 108 of the Evidence Act has been fulfilled. It has been arbitrarily held by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) that the plaintiff was oblige to seek any other declaration in regard to claim of service benefits in addition to the declaration of civil death.
In Vijaya Shrikant Revale v. Shirish Shrikant Revale & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 1898, It was held by that a civil court has the power to grant declaratory relief of civil death. It was observed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court as under :
"10. It is true that only Civil Court has power to give suresh relief of declaration in such matters. The CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 11 of 15 inquiry under section 372 of the Act is limited. However, the Court which conducts the inquiry under Section 372 of the Act is a civil Court and therefore the said Court is competent to decide the issue of declaration of death of Shrikant Vishnupant Revale."
Lastly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in LIC of India Vs. Anuradha, AIR 2004 SC 2070, held as under:
" On the basis of the above said authorities, we unhesitatingly arrive at a conclusion which were sum up in the following words. The law as to presumption of death remains the same whether in Common Law of England or in the statutory provisions contained in Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the scheme of Evidence Act, though Sections 107 and 108 are drafted as two Sections, in effect, Section 108 is an exception to the rule enacted in Section 107. The human life shown to be in existence, at a given point of time which according to Section 107 ought to be a point within 30 years calculated backwards from the date when the question arises, is presumed to continue to be living. The rule is subject to a proviso or exception as contained in Section 108. If the persons, who would have naturally and in the ordinary course of human affairs heard of the person in question, have not so heard of him for seven years the presumption raised under Section 107 ceases to operate. Section 107 has the effect of shifting the burden of proving that the person is dead on him who affirms the fact. Section 108 subject to its applicability being attracted, has the effect of shifting the burden of proof back on the on the sa.18.16 one who asserts the fact of that person being alive. The presumption raised under Section 108 is a limited presumption confined only to presuming the factum of death of the person who's life or death is in issue. Though it will be presumed that the person is dead but there is no presumption as to the date or time of death. There is no presumption as to the facts and circumstances under which the person may have died. The presumption as to death by reference to Section 108 would arise only on lapse of seven years and would not by applying any logic or reasoning be permitted to be raised on expiry of 6 years and 364 days or at any time short of it. An occasion for raising the presumption would arise only when the question is raised in a Court, Tribunal or before an authority who is called upon to decide as to whether a person is alive or dead. So long as the dispute is not raised before any forum and in any legal proceedings the occasion for raising the presumption does not arise."
CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 12 of 15
15. The grant of decree of declaration of civil death of a person is founded on the presumption envisaged in Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972. The said provision propounds that if a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted upon the person who affirms it. The presumption raised under Section 108 is a limited presumption confined only to presuming the factum of death of the person whose life or death is in issue. Though, it will be presumed that the person is dead but there is no presumption as to the date or time of death. In Narbada v. Ram Dayal, AIR 1968 Raj. 48, it was held that under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, presumption about the death of a person is to be drawn when the dispute is brought to the Court and death can be presumed on the date on which the suit was filed and it cannot be given a further retrospective effect.
16. It is averred in the plaint that Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati has been missing since 25.02.1989. The same is evident from the police complaints Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6. Neither the police officials nor the relatives of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati have been able to gather any clue about his whereabouts since 25.02.1989 which is evident from the record. There is nothing on record to discredit the version of the plaintiff, whose testimony remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. The plaintiff has proved his Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/1, PAN Card Ex. PW1/2 and certificate Ex. PW1/4 to show his relationship with Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati and the same has not been disputed. In the natural course of events, it can be reasonably expected that the son of a person would hear from his father. The document Ex. PW1/7 also shows CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 13 of 15 that after Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati had gone missing, his pension was released in favour of Smt. Oma Wanti. In these circumstances, a presumption as to the civil death of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati is liable to be raised. The defendants have not been able to rebut the presumption.
17. Accordingly, plaintiff has been successful in proving the issue No.1 is his favour and he is held entitled to a declaration that Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati be declared as presumed dead. The declaration of civil death of Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati shall be effective from the date of filing of the suit in the light of judgment of Narbada v. Ram Dayal (supra).
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory Injunction as prayed in the plaint? OPP
18. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. As far as the prayer for issuance of death certificate is concerned, nothing has been brought on record by defendant No.2/MCD that death certificate cannot be granted without specific date of death being mentioned in such cases where a declaration of civil death has been sought from the court. Thus, issue No.2 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief
19. In view of my aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati is declared as dead from the date of filing of the present suit i.e. 17.01.2020. Defendant No.2/MCD shall issue death certificate in respect of CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 14 of 15 Sh. Krishan Lal Gulati and his date of death shall be taken to be the date of filing of the present suit i.e. 17.01.2020.
Plaintiff shall bear his own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed
by PRANAV
on this 09th Day of September, 2024 PRANAV JOSHI
Date:
JOSHI 2024.09.09
17:04:48
+0530
(PRANAV JOSHI)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
CS SCJ No. 147/2020 Kewal Kishor Gulati Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 15 of 15