Delhi District Court
Poonam vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANA KHAN, CIVIL JUDGE-05:
Digitally
signed by
SANA
SANA KHAN
KHAN Date:
2026.03.16
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
16:41:27
+0530
CS SCJ No. 901/24
CNR No. DLCT-03-00-003643-2024
1. Smt. Poonam W/o Shri Pawan Kumar
( SPA Holder of plaintiff no. 2 & 3).
D/o Shri Karodimal @ Kirodi
RZ-36-A, Roshan Vihar,
Near Kakrola Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi
2. Smt. Neenu Sain W/o Shri Sanjay Sain
D/o Shri Karodimal @ Kirodi
249/4, Saraswati Vihar,
Ward No. 19, Rewari, Haryana-123401
3. Sanjay
S/o Shri Karodimal @ Kirodi
House No. E-404, Gali No. 16.
Khajuri Khas, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi--110094.
....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary Delhi
Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi
Poonam Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 1 of 9
Digitally
signed by
SANA
SANA KHAN
KHAN Date:
2026.03.16
16:41:34
+0530
2. The SHO P. S. Sarai Rohilla Delhi
3. Office of Sub Registrar (Birth & Death) Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Zonal Building,
D.G. Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 (Anand Parbhat)
....Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of Institution :09.05.2024
Date of Judgment :14.03.2026
Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaratory decree that their father namely Sh. Karodimal @ Kirodi be declared as dead, as he is missing and untraceable since 23.12.2013. In addition, plaintiffs have also sought mandatory injunction against the defendants to issue a death certificate of their father.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the plaint, are that plaintiff no.1 & 2 are the daughters and plaintiff no.3 is the son of Sh. Karodimal, s/o late Sh. Mandu Ram. The present suit is filed by Smt. Poonam, who is also SPA holder of plaintiff no.2 & 3. That, on 23.12.2013, at about Poonam Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 2 of 9 Digitally signed by SANA SANA KHAN KHAN Date:
2026.03.16 16:41:40 +0530 08:00 AM, Sh. Karodimal went to barber shop and did not return home ever since thereafter. Accordingly, a missing complaint was lodged at PS Sarai Rohilla, vide DD no.14A on 26.12.2013. That, after the said complaint, plaintiff and her family took repeated follow ups at the concerned police station, however, the whereabouts of Sh. Karodimal could not be found out despite best efforts. That, PS Sarai Rohilla filed an untrace report on the missing complaint on 25.03.2022. In such circumstances, the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking a relief that their father is missing for almost 14 years and therefore, he may be declared dead in view of the presumption under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act.
3. Summons of the present suit were issued upon the defendants vide order dated 09.05.2024. Vide order dated 03.09.2024, defendant no.1 was proceeded ex-parte and defendant no.2 was dropped from the array of parties. Defendant no.3 contested the suit and filed a WS.
4. It was averred by defendant no.3 that the present suit is barred for want of statutory notice under Section 477 & 478 of DMC Act. It was further averred that issuance of death certificate does not come within the purview of defendant no.3, if the death is not registered with the department within one year of occurrence of death. Further that, a death Poonam Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 3 of 9 Digitally signed by SANA SANA KHAN KHAN Date:
2026.03.16 16:41:46 +0530 certificate can only be issued in case of actual occurrence of death of any person or under the orders of the competent court.
5. No replication was filed by plaintiffs.
6. After completion of pleadings, following issue were framed for trial:-
(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration that Shri Karodimal @ Kirodi, s /o Late Mandu Ram be declared as civil dead, as prayed for in prayer (a) in the plaint?OPP.
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant no.3 to record the factum of death of Sh Karodimal @ Kirodi and issue a death certificate thereupon, as prayed for in prayer (b) in the plaint? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
7. Matter then proceeded for PE. Plaintiff no.1/SPA Ms. Poonam stepped into the witness box and examined herself as PW1. She deposed on the same lines as that of the pleadings and tendered her evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents i.e. Copy of SPA dated 09.04.2024 issued by the plaintiff no.2 & 3 in favour of deponent- Ex.PW1/1(OSR), Copy of death certificate of Smt. Kaushalya Poonam Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 4 of 9 Digitally signed by SANA SANA KHAN KHAN Date:
2026.03.16 16:41:52 +0530 PW1/2(OSR), Copy of missing DD Entry of Sh. Karodimal @ Karodi- Ex.PW1/3(OSR), Copy of untrace report dated 25.03.2022- Ex. PW1/4(OSR) and Copy of Election Identity Card of Sh. Karodimal @ Karodi- Ex.PW1/5(OSR). She was duly cross examined.
8. Plaintiffs also examined HC Ompal, PS Sarai Rohilla. He deposed that the complaint dated 26.12.2013 and untrace report dated 25.03.2022 was destroyed vide order dated 8736-71/HAR/North District, Delhi dated 16.07.2025. A copy of the said order was exhibited as Ex.PW2/1. The right of defendant to cross examine this witness was closed vide dated 17.10.2025. PE was closed thereafter.
09. Despite opportunity, defendant no.3 chose not to lead any evidence. DE was accordingly closed vide order dated 14.01.2026.
10. Final arguments were addressed by both the counsels.
11. I have considered the arguments as well as perused the judicial record carefully.
12. The onus to prove the present suit is upon the plaintiffs. However, before I appreciate the evidence led by plaintiffs, I deem it appropriate Poonam Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 5 of 9 Digitally signed by SANA SANA KHAN KHAN Date:
2026.03.16 16:41:58 +0530 to discuss the legal propositions and the provisions under which the present suit has been filed.
13. The jurisdiction of civil court to grant declaratory decree flows from Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 34 of Specific Relief Act talks about discretion of court as to declaration of legal status or right of any person entitled thereto.
14. Strictly speaking, the relief as to declaration of civil death does not fall within the purview of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 as it neither relates to legal character of any person, nor his right as to any property. However, it is now a settled position of law that section 34 of Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of all kinds of declaratory decree and that a declaratory decree suit is still maintainable which may not fall within the purview of section 34 of Specific Relief Act. It has been already clarified by Hon'ble Apex Court that declaratory relief falling out of Specific Relief Act, may fall under the general provisions of CPC.
(Reliance in this regard can be placed on "General Films Exchange Limited Vs. HH Maraharja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo, AIR 1975 SC 1810 & Vemareddi Ramaraghav Reddy Vs. Kondury Seshu Reddy, AIR 1967 SC 436)".
Poonam Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 6 of 9 Digitally signed by SANA SANA KHAN KHAN Date:
2026.03.16 16:42:04 +0530
15. Further, in the case of "Swati and Ors. Vs. Abhay, MANU/MH/0334/2016", Hon'ble Bombay High Court has already held that a suit for declaration of Civil Death of another person on the part of a legal heir is very well maintainable. In " Vijaya Shrikant Revale Vs. Shirish Shrikant Revale 2016 SCC Bom 1898", it was held that the civil court has the power to grant declaratory decree of civil death.
16. Recently in judgment titled as " Raeesa Bano Vs. Tabbasum Jahan dated 18.02.2024", it is held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that there is no bar under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act of filing a suit for declaration of Civil death of another person, if the plaintiff is legal heir and such legal character of civil death is for his benefit and the same is attributed to such legal character. It is further held that suit for mere declaration is maintainable and there is no requirement for seeking further relief if it is not necessary.
17. In view of the above discussed judicial pronouncements, this court is satisfied regarding the maintainability of the present suit.
18. Now coming to the merits of the case, the grant of decree of civil death of a person is founded on the presumption envisaged in Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, which is pari materia to Section 111 of Bhartiya Poonam Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 7 of 9 Digitally signed by SANA SANA KHAN KHAN Date:
2026.03.16 16:42:09 +0530 Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023. As per the aforesaid provision, if a person has not been heard of for 7 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.
19. In the present case, plaintiffs are claiming that their father has been missing since 23.12.2013 i.e. for more than 13 years now. In support of this, plaintiffs have filed a copy of the missing report Ex.PW1/3(OSR) filed by their mother before SHO PS Sarai Rohilla on 26.12.2013, in which untrace report Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) is already filed. Plaintiffs have also explained that their mother has expired and filed her death certificate, which is Ex.PW1/2(OSR). Plaintiffs are stated to be children and class-I legal heirs of Sh. Karodi Mal. Despite cross examination, defendant no.3 could not bring out any discrepancy in the version of the plaintiffs. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to discredit the plaintiffs.
20. In the natural course of events, it is reasonably expected that the children of a person would have naturally heard from their father.
However, in the instant case, plaintiffs have not heard from their father for almost 14 years now. In such circumstances, the presumption as to the death of Sh. Karodimal @ Kirodi is liable to be raised.
Poonam Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 8 of 9 Digitally signed by SANA SANA KHAN KHAN Date:
2026.03.16 16:42:15 +0530
21. As such, the court has no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1. In view of the above, the claim of the plaintiffs as averred in the instant suit stands established.
22. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. As held in a case titled as Narbada Vs. Ram Dayal (AIR 1968 Raj. 48), the presumption under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act 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.
23. Accordingly, Sh. Karodimal @ Kirodi, is declared dead from the date of the filing of the present suit i.e. 09.05.2024. Defendant no.3 is accordingly directed to issue a death certificate of Sh. Karodimal @ Kirodi, s/o Sh. Mandu Ram w.e.f 09.05.2024.
24. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
25. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court SANA
KHAN
Digitally signed
by SANA KHAN
Date:
2026.03.16
on 14.03.2026
16:42:24 +0530
(Sana Khan)
Civil Judge-05, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi
Poonam Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Page No. 9 of 9