Madras High Court
K.Dhanasekaran vs The Chief Registrar Of Births &
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.4194 of 2023
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Reserved on : Delivered on:
11.7.2025 16.7.2025
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.4194 of 2023
& WMP.No.4229 of 2023
1.K.Dhanasekaran
2.K.Mohan
3.K.Chandrasekar
4.K.Hemakumar
…Petitioners
Vs
1.The Chief Registrar of Births &
Death Registration/Director of
Public Health & Preventive
Medicine, No.359, Anna Salai,
DMS Complex, Teynampet,
Chennai-6.
2.The Sanitary Inspector/
Registrar of Births & Deaths,
Division No.160, Zone 12,
Public Health Department,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.1, New Street, Alandur,
Chennai-16.
3.G.V.Lakshmi Narayanan …Respondents
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm )
W.P.No.4194 of 2023
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to
the proceedings dated 11.1.2023 passed in Ma.A.12/Po.Su.Thu.Na.Ka.
No.Sirappu/202 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Subbiah, SC for
Ms.Elizabeth Ravi
For R1 : Mr.E.Sundaram, GA
For R2 : Ms.P.T.Ramadevi,
Standing Counsel
For R3 : Mr.P.V.Sathyanarayanan &
Mr.U.Karunakaran
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated 11.1.2023 wherein the second respondent canceled the death certificate that was issued in the name of one Mr.V.Balram Naidu on the ground it is a forged and fabricated document.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023
3. The case of the petitioners is as follows :
(i) The petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the property in T.S.No.43 bearing No.19, Jal Naicker Street, Alandur, Chennai. Under the guise of executing an eviction order passed dated 25.3.2002 in R.C.O.P.No.30 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, an attempt was made by the third respondent and others to evict the petitioners and take possession of the subject property. Further, based on the order dated 11.8.2016 passed in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3127 of 2013, which was filed at the instance of the third respondent and five others, the petitioners' application in E.A.No.226 of 2003 in E.P.No.36 of 2002 for restoration of possession was taken up and in those proceedings, the extract evidencing the demise of the said Mr.V.Balram Naidu was produced by the petitioners on the ground that he was originally in possession of the subject property.
(ii) At that time, the third respondent produced a certificate dated 05.7.2017 based on the complaint given by his brother - one Mr.G.V.Gopalakrishna Naidu whereby the entry with regard to the death of the said Mr.V.Balram Naidu was canceled by the Zonal Health 3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 Officer, Zone 12, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.1, New Street, Alandur, Chennai-16.
(iii) At the instance of the petitioners, the said order dated 05.7.2017 was put to challenge by filing W.P.No.16244 of 2022 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed on 10.10.2022 and the matter was remanded to the second respondent to deal with the issue under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short, the Act). As a consequence, the second respondent, after conducting an inquiry, passed the impugned order dated 11.1.2023. As against the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein he took the following stand :
(i) The said Mr.G.V.Gopalakrishna Naidu lodged a complaint dated 17.4.2017 before the City Health Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-3 seeking to verify the genuineness of the death certificate pertaining to the said Mr.V.Balram Naidu on the ground no such person either lived or died in the address at No.19, Jal Naicken Street, Alandur, Chennai-16. Pursuant to that, 4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 an inquiry was conducted and it was found that it is a false and fabricated document.
(ii) The reason for coming to such a conclusion is explained in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the counter affidavit, which is extracted as hereunder :
“7. I respectfully submit that in Column No.19 and 20 of the death register where the mark or signature of the informant and the residence has to be filled and the informant have to sign. The father of Balram Naidu, who was named as Vajravel Naidu, has signed in Column No.19. It is pertinent to note here that the so called Vajravel Naidu predeceased Balram Naidu as on the date of death, which was 05.9.1971. The petitioners have deposed during the enquiry conducted by me that the so called father of Balram Naidu that was Vajravel Naidu had predeceased him.
8. I respectfully submit that in the death register, in Column No.22, where the name of burial ground details has been properly mentioned for all the entries from S.No.68 to 74 in annual number and S.No.1 to 7 in monthly number, for this particular entry in S.No.75, burial ground details could not be inserted in that column due to the reason that the Commissioner, Alandur Municipality's signature and official seal has fully 5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 occupied the column No.22 and half of column No.21. Based on the above facts, it is proved that Mr.V.Balram Naidu death was fraudulently inserted in the death register.
9. I respectfully submit as per the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 10.10.2022 in W.P.No.16244 of 2022, an enquiry has been conducted with the petitioners and other three persons. During the enquiry, it is found that the petitioners were not related to the deceased person Mr.V.Balram Naidu and they have failed to prove that V.Balram Naidu resided in No.19, Jal Naicken Street, Alandur, Chennai-600016 and they have no evidences to prove that Mr.V.Balram Naidu died on 05.9.1971 at No.19, Jal Naicken Street, Alandur, Chennai-600016.
10. I respectfully submit that as per the Hon'ble High Court order, the second respondent had conducted the enquiry after giving proper notice to the petitioners. The petitioners have been given the opportunity to answer the pertinent questions during the enquiry conducted on 27.12.2022 and their deposition has been recorded. After reading the entire recording of their evidence, the petitioners have signed their deposition. I further submit that the petitioners could not furnish any valid documentary evidence that Mr.V.Balram Naidu died in that particular 6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 address nor could they prove any relationship with the deceased. Thereby, the second respondent had passed the impugned order dated 11.1.2023.”
(iii) According to the second respondent, where an entry was made in the Register of Births and Deaths fraudulently or improperly, the same could be canceled by virtue of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 25.6.1992. Ultimately, the second respondent sought for dismissal of this writ petition.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 11.1.2023.
6. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 29.1.2025, this Court passed the following order :
“This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent, canceling the entry in the official Death Register, with regard to the death of one Balram Naidu, dated 31.12.1971.
2. The respondents, along with the counter affidavit, produced a copy of the relevant page of 7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 the Register of Death maintained by the Commissioner of Alandur Municipality.
3. The leaned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out various discrepancies in the original Death Register with regard to the entries made by the concerned officer about the death of Balram Naidu. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the signature of the Registrar found in Sl.No.8 (column
21) differs with his signature found in Sl.No.1 and 3 to 7 in column 21. It is also contended that the handwriting found Sl.No.1, 3 to 7 differs with the handwriting found in Sl.No.8.
4. In view of the above, this court feels that it is appropriate to get opinion of an expert with regard to the signature found in column No.21 and also handwriting found in Sl.No.1, 3 to 8.
5. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to produce the photostat copy of the register before the Director of Government Forensic Laboratory, Criminal Records Bureau, Chennai-28, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and on receipt of the same, the said authority shall nominate a competent officer from his office to compare the signature of the Registrar found in Sl.No.8 in column No.21 along with the admitted signature of the very same officer found in column No.21 of 8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 Sl.No. 1, 3 to 7 and give an opinion as to whether all the signatures found in column No.21 of Sl.No.1 and 3 to 8 are made by the same person. The concerned expert is also directed to compare the hand writing found in Sl.No.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 along with the hand writing found in Sl.No.8 and give his opinion as to whether the handwriting found in Sl.No.8 and the handwriting found in Sl.No.1, 3, 4, 5 , 6 and 7 belonged to the same person. The expert, so nominated can also have a look at original register maintained by the second respondent and can take photographs of the relevant entries, if the same is required for comparison. The second respondent shall extend all cooperation for the same.
6. Expert opinion shall be submitted within four weeks from the date of receipt of records by the concern authority. The cost of this exercise shall be borne by the petitioner.
7. List the matter for further hearing on 19.03.2025.
8. Registry is directed to mark the copy of this order to the Director, Government Forensic Laboratory (Criminal Records Bureau), Santhome, Chennai-28.” 9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023
7. Pursuant to the above order, the Forensic Sciences Department submitted a report and on receipt of the same, the following order was passed by this Court on 03.6.2025 :
“Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, the report received from the Forensic Science Department was placed before this Court. The expert, after comparing the signatures marked as A1 to A6 in the original register has found that they do not tally with the signatures found in Sr.No.8, which was marked as Q1. Similarly, writings marked as A7 to A12 and A7a to A12a did not tally with the writings marked as Q2 and Q2a. The reasons have also been given in a separate sheet.
2. Considering the adverse report given by the Forensic Science Department, this Court deems it fit to direct that a copy be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the private respondents to enable them to make their submissions.
3. Post the matter on 17.06.2025 under the caption ‘For orders’.”
8. In the considered view of this Court, the Forensic Sciences Department came to a categoric conclusion and after comparing the signatures in the original register to that of the samples taken, it was 10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 found that they did not tally and accordingly, the Expert was of the opinion that it is a fabricated entry made in the register.
9. The fourth petitioner filed an affidavit dated 30.6.2025 objecting to the report of the Forensic Sciences Department and further stated that the Forensic Sciences Department had come to the conclusion even without verifying the original register maintained by the second respondent and that there was no clarity in the report submitted by the Forensic Sciences Department.
10. This case has a chequered history. The third respondent and others filed the eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.30 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur against certain tenants. The eviction was ordered on 25.3.2002. As against the same, the tenants filed R.C.A.No.43 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chengalpet and it was dismissed by judgment dated 26.4.2007. Aggrieved by that, the tenants filed C.R.P.(PD) No.3510 of 2007 before this Court and it was also dismissed by order dated 16.9.2011.
11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023
11. The eviction order was further confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.32980 of 2011 vide order dated 10.1.2012 with a condition that the subject property should be vacated by the tenants and delivered to the landlords on or before 30.6.2012. Thereafter, execution proceedings were initiated and delivery of possession was recorded on 10.7.2012. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioners filed an obstruction application under Order XXI Rules 96 to 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and it was rejected by the District Munsif Court, Alandur vide order dated 10.7.2012 even at the SR stage.
12. As against the said order dated 10.7.2012, R.C.A.No.40 of 2012 was filed before the Subordinate Court, Tambaram and it was allowed by judgment dated 17.7.2013. Aggrieved by that, the landlords namely the third respondent and five others filed C.R.P.(NPD) No.3127 of 2013 before this Court and by order dated 11.8.2016, this Court remanded the matter to the Rent Controller namely the District Munsif Court, Alandur to give an opportunity to both parties and to complete the proceedings within a period of two months therefrom.
12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023
13. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners produced a Will and the death certificate along with a proof affidavit, in which, the third respondent took a stand that both the death certificate as well as the Will were forged documents. Thereafter, the said Mr.G.V.Gopalakrishna Naidu sent the complaint dated 17.4.2017 to the City Health Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-3 to verify the genuineness of the death certificate issued in the name of the said Mr.V.Balram Naidu. Pursuant to that, the Zonal Health Officer, Zone 12, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.1, New Street, Alandur, Chennai-16, vide proceedings dated 05.7.2017, canceled the death certificate issued in the name of the said Mr.V.Balram Naidu as it was found as a bogus document and it was intimated to the said Mr.G.V.Gopalakrishna Naidu.
14. Based on the same, the landlords filed E.A.No.152 of 2017 to receive additional documents by the Executing Court namely the complaint given by the third respondent and the letter issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation that the death certificate pertaining to the said Mr.V.Balram Naidu is a fabricated document and it was allowed on 11.7.2017. Later, the tenants filed E.A.No.303 of 2017 13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 seeking to examine the Amin, the Police Officials, the Village Administrative Officer and the officials of the Town Survey Department at Alandur. It was dismissed by order dated 21.2.2018. In turn, the landlords filed E.A.No.304 of 2017 seeking to recall RW1 to mark additional documents and it was allowed on 30.1.2018. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners filed R.C.A.Nos.18 and 19 of 2021 before the Subordinate Court, Alandur and they were also dismissed on 14.12.2021 by two separate orders.
15. Thereafter, the petitioners filed W.P.No.16244 of 2022 seeking to quash the proceedings dated 05.7.2017 issued by the Zonal Health Officer, Zone 12, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.1, New Street, Alandur, Chennai-16. It was disposed of by order dated 10.10.2022 remanding the matter to the file of the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Alandur Municipality to pass orders within a period of three months. After the disposal of the said writ petition, the matter was once again listed on 18.10.2022 for being spoken to in order to carry out certain corrections and accordingly, corrections were carried out. Pursuant to that, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent.
14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023
16. The main ground that was urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the second respondent is not vested with the jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry in line with Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, that the second respondent cannot cancel the death certificate pertaining to the said Mr.V.Balram Naidu, that the second respondent usurped the powers of the first respondent and that therefore, the impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction.
17. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is absolutely no genuineness in the claim made by the petitioners. In order to verify and confirm the findings of the second respondent, this Court directed the Forensic Sciences Department to submit a report. Pursuant to the that, a report has been submitted and it would show that the entry made in the register is forged and fabricated. The said report has been given only after verifying the original register and the same is evident from the communication dated 08.4.2025 addressed by the Zonal Health Officer, Zone 12, Greater Chennai Corporation, Nagireddy 15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 Garden, Guindy, Chennai-32 to the Deputy Director, Document Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
18. This Court also had an opportunity to scrutinize the relevant register and even for the naked eye, it is clearly evident that the register has been fabricated and that an attempt has been made to include the name of the said Mr.V.Balram Naidu as S.No.8. The entire entry is a forgery and in the place where the name of the burial ground/ burning ground is supposed to be entered in the register, it contains the signature of the Commissioner, Alandur Municipality. Hence, it is evident that after the register has been signed by the Commissioner, Alandur Municipality, an attempt was made to insert the name of the said Mr.V.Balram Naidu and the persons concerned did not realize that in the place allotted for mentioning of the name of burial/burning ground, the signature of the Commissioner, Alandur Municipality is available.
19. If the entry made in the register is found to be forged, then obviously the so-called Will that is relied upon by the petitioners is also a fabricated document. The petitioners, having chosen to rely upon a 16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 forged and fabricated document before this Court, cannot be permitted to question the authority of the second respondent to cancel the death certificate pertaining to the said Mr.Balram Naidu.
20. Fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings. Any document, which surfaces pursuant to a fraud committed, is a nullity in the eye of law. The petitioners are attempting to submit a fraudulent document before this Curt and when the same is questioned, they have now adopted the process of questioning the decision taken by the second respondent. The decision taken by the second respondent stands confirmed on account of the report submitted by the Forensic Sciences Department.
21. This Court finds that there is absolutely no genuineness on the part of the petitioners and that they are attempting to drag on with the proceedings by relying upon fraudulent documents. Under such circumstances, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the writ petition.
17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023
22. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioners to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within a period of four weeks from today. Consequently, the connected WMP is also dismissed.
23. Post the writ petition on 13.8.2025 under the caption "for reporting compliance".
16.7.2025 To
1.The Chief Registrar of Births & Death Registration/Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, No.359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai-6.
2.The Sanitary Inspector/ Registrar of Births & Deaths, Division No.160, Zone 12, Public Health Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.1, New Street, Alandur, Chennai-16.
RS 18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm ) W.P.No.4194 of 2023 N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS WP.No.4194 of 2023& WMP.No.4229 of 2023 16.7.2025 19/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 03:20:06 pm )