Delhi District Court
Rakesh Ralli vs State Through Chief Secretary ... on 9 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR PASWAN DISTRICT
JUDGE-07 SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
RCA No: 12/2024
CNR No. DLSE01-001646-2024
Rakesh Ralli
S/o Shri Ram Saran Dass Ralli
R/o E-33, Amar Colony,
New Delhi-110024
Rajesh Ralli
S/o Shri Ram Saran Dass Ralli
R/o E-33, Amar Colony,
New Delhi-110024
Dinesh Ralli
S/o Shri Ram Saran Dass Ralli
R/o S-247, Panchseel Park
New Delhi-110017
Kamla Devi
W/o Shri Ram Saran Dass Ralli
R/o E-33, Amar Colony,
New Delhi-110024
Sadhna Batra
D/o Shri Ram Saran Dass Ralli
R/o E-33, Amar Colony,
New Delhi-110024
..... Appellants
RCA No. 12/2024
Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 1
Digitally signed
ANIL by ANIL KUMAR
PASWAN
KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09
16:15:25 +0530
Versus
State Through Chief Secretary
Government of NCT of Delhi
5th Floor, Wing A,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110002
SDM
Defence Colony
DM Office Rd, National Park
Old Gargi College Building
Lajpat Nagar 4
New Delhi-110024
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through Commissioner
Civic Centre, Shri Shamanath Mukherjee Marg,
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002
Dy. Health Officer & Registrar
(Births & Deaths)
MCD, South Zone,
Green Park,
New Delhi-110016
..... Respondents
RCA No. 12/2024
Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 2
ANIL Digitally signed
by ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR PASWAN
Date: 2025.09.09
PASWAN 16:15:36 +0530
APPEAL UNDER ORDER XLI READ WITH SECTION 96 CPC
AGAINST JUDGMENT/DECREE DATED 16.01.2024
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 17.02.2024
DATE OF RESERVING FOR JUDGMENT : 02.09.2025
DATE OF DECISION : 09.09.2025
FINAL DECISION: Allowed
JUDGMENT
Case of Appellant/Plaintiff
1. Appellant/plaintiff has filed present appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 16.01.2024 , passed by Ld. Civil Judge-03 South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi (henceforth referred to as 'Ld. Trial Court') in Suit No. 196/2022, titled as "Rakesh Ralli And Ors Vs. State through Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors"
whereby suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed being not proved.
2. The appellant had filed the suit u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act ( in short "SRA") for declaration of death in absentia (Civil death) of Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli. In the suit, it was submitted that the plaintiff no. 1 to 3 namely Rakesh Ralli, Rajesh Ralli and Dinesh Ralli are the sons of Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli and plaintiff no.4 Smt. Kamla Devi RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 3 Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:15:44 +0530 is the wife of Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli and plaintiff no.5 Sadhna Batra is his daughter. Further the defendant no.1 is a necessary party being state and guardian of life and property of the citizen and defendant no. 2 is the authority submitting final report of missing persons, defendant no.3 and defendant no.4 are departments for maintaining the birth and death record, defendant no.5 and defendant no.6 are the investigating agency and its official.
3. It is submitted that on 25.10.1994, Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli left his home at E-33, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi and told his family that he is going out for a walk at around 9:30 AM. He did not return till evening and despite efforts, he could not be traced and therefore, the plaintiff filed a missing report at the PS Lajpat Nagar, on 25.10.1994 vide DD No. 25 at around 8:55 PM and public notice was also published in Nav Bharat Times newspaper on 28.10.1994. On 31.10.1994, the clothes and belongings of Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli were found in the area of PS Okhla at the Bank of Yamuna River by the officials at the police post Okhla.
4. The plaintiff's went to the Bank of Yamuna River in search of Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli but his body was not found and statement of Plaintiff no. 2 was recorded to this effect. On 21.10.2003, the plaintiff no.1 wrote letter to the defendant no.2, requesting for RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 4 Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:15:52 +0530 issuance of "Presumed to be Dead or Death Certificate" as more than seven years had lapsed since he went missing but no response was received despite contacting defendant no.2.
5. That till date, plaintiff's have not heard of Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli from anyone during all these years. He had shares in various companies in his name and the plaintiff's have been deprived of various benefits which could have been given to them if the death certificate was issued. Therefore, suit was filed.
WS of Defendant no.3 and 4/ Respondents
6. It was submitted that the suit was barred by Section 477 and 478 of the DMC Act for want of service of statutory notice and as per rule 5.6 of birth and death booklet, issued by the Home Ministry provides that in case of missing person an appropriate direction/order should be obtained from any competent court of law, and then in that case name of such missing person can be entered into the birth and death register maintained by the answering defendant and thereafter the appropriate certificate is issued.
REPLICATION/REJOINDER
7. No replication was filed in this case.
RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 5 Digitally signedANIL by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:16:01 +0530 ISSUES
8. In View of the pleadings and accompanying document, the following issues were framed for trial on dated 28.01.2023:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration in terms of relief A of the plaint? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction against defendant no.2 in terms of relief B? OPP (3) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
9. Plaintiff examined Sh. Rakesh Ralli, S/o Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli, aged about 61 years, as PW-1.He relied upon documents i.e:-
1) Special Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff no.2 to 5 in favour of plaintiff no.1 is Ex.PW1/1,
2) Copy of public notice dated 28.10.1994 is Ex.PW1/2 ,
3) Copy of letter dated 21.10.2003 is Ex.PW1/3,
4) Copy of list of shares in the name of PW1's father is Ex. PW1/4, RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 6 Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:16:10 +0530
5) Complaint vide DD No. 25 dated 25.10.1994 is Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
10. Plaintiffs further examined Sh. Rajesh Ralli, S/o Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli, as PW-2. He relied upon documents i.e:-
1) Statement recorded at PS Okhla is exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 (OSR).
2) Letter dated 06.09.2021 is Ex.PW2/2.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
11. No evidence was led.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
12. Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the suit of plaintiff/appellant vide order dated 16.01.2024 and the present appeal has been filed on the following grounds:
a) The impugned order was passed which is contrary to the law and facts of the present case and would cause serious miscarriage of justice.
b) Ld. Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the assertion of the plaintiff with regard to filing of a complaint of a missing person, search of missing person and the report, if any, RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 7 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:16:18 +0530 remains unproved.
c) Ld. Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not approached the trial court for declaration of their legal character and sought prayer for declaration of status of some other person i.e. Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli, whereas, as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act (SRA), declaration qua the legal character of another person is not permissible.
d) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that when a declaration has been sought that Mr. Ram Saran Dass Ralli has been missing and unheard for more than seven years, the same is ineffect a declaration of his civil death or widowhood of appellant no.4.
e) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the law laid down in case of Smt. Vinita Jain Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (East) and other judgment wherein it was held that a suit for declaration of civil death of a person unheard of for more than seven years is very much maintainable.
f) Ld. Trial Court erred in law while observing that no suit lies for a declaration that a person not having been heard of for seven years was deemed to be dead, unless the suitor seeks to establish that he is entitled to any legal character or to any right as to RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 8 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.09.09 16:16:26 +0530 any property is incorrect and as such the appellant, besides the declaratory relief of declaration of civil death, have in addition sought the relief of mandatory injunction to concerned authorities to issue death certificate.
g) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that a civil court has the power to grant declaratory relief of civil death as per Section 108 of the Evidence Act and there was wrong interpretation of Section 108 of the said Act as the said provision says that if it is proved that a person has not been heard of for certain years by those who would have heard of him, if he had been alive, the burden proving that he is alive i.e. after seven year, is shifted to the other party who says he is alive. Further, once the evidentiary burden thus, shifts to the opposite party who contends that even after seven years, the person was alive and that person does not discharge that burden which has so shifted to him, the court should draw the presumption that the person is dead after that period expires and in the present case, there is nobody claiming that Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli is alive.
Points for determination
13. (i) Whether Ld. Trial Court had rightly held that the plaintiff/ appellant had not examined any concerned official of police station to proof the factum of missing person.
RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 9 Digitally signedby ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.09.09 16:16:44 +0530
(ii) Whether a Ld. Trial Court rightly observed that U/s 107 and 108 Indian Evidence Act, does not create any substantive right or cause of action in favour of any person
(iii) Whether a suit for declaration qua any legal character or right to any property of any other person is maintainable.
(iv) Whether the suit was barred by Section 477 and 478 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
14. I have heard arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record including TCR.
15. My observations are given as under:
POINT NO. (I)
16. The first point is taken up and as per the observation of Ld. Trial Court, plaintiff has not attempted to summon any official witness in support of the contentions regarding missing person and no report has been filed by the concerned police station. In this context, appellant has relied upon judgment titled Smt. Alka Sharma vs. Union of India and Ors dated 17.01.2020 Allahabad High Court by Hon'ble Justice Sh. Vivek Aggarwal. Following are the relevant paragraphs from the said judgment.
RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 10 Digitally signedby ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:16:52 +0530 "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 Sh. Govind Prasad Sharma in her official capacity, there was sufficient plethora of evidence to the effect RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 11 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:16:59 +0530 that the presumption should have been drawn as to the civil death of Sh. Govind Prasad Sharma as twin requirements of law as laid down in Sections 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 RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 12 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.09.09 16:17:06 +0530 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."
"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 RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 13 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:17:14 +0530 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".
17. Therefore, in view of the above judicial pronouncement, there is no special requirement for any final report from the investigating agency regarding the status of missing person. This is a civil suit and not a criminal trial. The law is clear and Section 108 of the Act throws the burden upon the person who affirms that the person is dead. In the present case, respondents or any other person interested has not come forward to discharge the burden. There is no objection to the declaration that Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli had died or RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 14 Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:17:23 +0530 may be presumed to have died.
18. There was publications in the newspaper i.e. "Hindustan Times" and "Dainik Bhaskar" both dated 19.09.2024 regarding objections towards factum of death of Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli. No one has come forward to rebut/object the said publication.
19. Further, the legal heirs/the nearest relatives are party to this appeal and were party to the suit filed. They are class I heirs and are the closest relatives of deceased. In the ordinary course of business/in natural course of things, they are more interested in the life and safety of the deceased. They are the one who would have naturally heard of the deceased, if he had been alive. However, they had stated that he was not heard for more than seven years. In these circumstances, there is no requirement of any other evidence/ corroboration from any independent source and the statement of such relatives are sufficient to decide any matter related to Section 108 of the Act. Therefore, the observations of Ld. Trial Court that the appellant had not examined/summoned relevant witness from the concerned police station to depose the fact of missing person is not correct. Therefore, this point is decided in favour of the appellant.
RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 15ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN Date: 2025.09.09 PASWAN 16:17:39 +0530 POINT NO. (II) & (III)
20. Both these points are taken up together being connected.
Section 107 & 108 of the Indian Evidence Act are a platform between the substantive and procedural laws. Though, they are not creating substantive rights however, indirectly they create rights which are akin to the substantive rights. If we take the aid of Section 107 of the Act then there is presumption of survivorship wherein a person is presumed to be alive, if it is shown that he was alive within thirty years and as per Section 108 of the Act, if he is not heard for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him, if he had been alive then, there is presumption of death. Therefore, the birth and death of a person definitely creates substantive right for him or for others. Ld. Counsel for appellant has relied upon the judgment titled "Alka Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors" Manu/Mh/0334/2016 and "LIC of India Vs. Anuradha Sharma", AIR2004SC2070 wherein, it was held that the Civil Courts have power to grant declaratory relief of civil death. Ld. Counsel has further relied upon the judgment titled "Smt. Raeesa Bano Vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan & Ors", Allahabad High Court decided on 28.02.2024 with the following relevant paragraphs.
"11. From the bare perusal of the RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 16 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:17:46 +0530 above provision, it is clear that a suit for declaration could be filed by any person for the following objects: (a) for his or her legal character, (b) for any right as to any property. Thus, it is clear that a suit for a declaration may be instituted for declaring a status or legal character to which a person/party may be entitled. However, in a suit for declaration of a civil death of another person, the plaintiff is not entitled to such legal character under section 34 of the Act. It is because a suit has been brought for a legal character of another person and not of the plaintiff.
12. Section 34 provides that any legal character may be declared for which a plaintiff is entitled. Besides this, he should not be a stranger to a dead person, but he must be interested in such legal character, maybe as his legal heirs. The suit filed at the instance of plaintiff can be contested by RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 17 Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:17:55 +0530 anyone denying or interested in denying his title to such character or right. Section 34 of the Act further bars any such declaration where the plaintiff can seek further relief.
Legal character is a position recognised by law. A person's legal character is the attribute that the law attaches to him. After the death of a person, his heirs, having an interest in such legal character, have the title to seek a declaration of such legal character as to the person's death. The suit at the instance of any such person for a declaration is maintainable if he can stand the test that he is entitled to any legal character, even though he cannot lay to immediate claim to any property.
11. From the above mentioned judgment, it is clear that though there is no bar under Section 34 of the Act, 1963, for filing a suit for declaration of a civil death of another person, RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 18 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:18:02 +0530 if the plaintiff is a legal heir and such legal character of civil death is for his benefit and the same is attributed to such legal character. Section 9 of CPC permits all suits of a civil nature the suits.
9. Courts to try all Civil Suit unless barred-
The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suit of which there cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."
"12. Therefore, it is clear from Section 9 of the C.P.C that all suits, which are of a civil nature, are maintainable before the Civil Court except specifically barred, but the suit for declaration of any legal character (civil death of a person) is not specially barred by Section 34 of the Act, 1963. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 is being reproduced as under.RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 19 Digitally signed
ANIL by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:18:18 +0530 "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:"
13. From the perusal of Section 34 of the Act, 1963 and its proviso, it is clear that it does not bar the suit for declaration of civil death of a person, but it simply regulates the suit which is in the nature of mere declaration without seeking further relief, which the plaintiff is able to seek, but when there is no requirement for further relief, then seeking further relief is not necessary. The declaration RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 20 Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:18:52 +0530 seeks to clear what is doubtful, and it prevents future litigation by removing existing causes of controversy. It gives a remedy to a person against all persons who not only claim adverse interest to his own but against all those who may do so, and it is intended that all such claims may once and for all be determined in one suit. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy; 2008 (4) SCC 594 observed that object of Section 34 of 'Act 1963' is to provide a perpetual bulwark against adverse attacks on the title of the plaintiff, where a cloud is cast upon it, and to prevent further litigation by removing the existing cause of controversy.
14. Declaring a person's civil death is a substantial relief and has an immediate consequential effect. On the declaration RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 21 ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN Date: 2025.09.09 PASWAN 16:19:01 +0530 of the death of a person, benefits are accrued on the legal heirs of the person declared as dead, therefore relief of all such benefits cannot be sought vaguely in the garb of further relief. Even Section 34 of 'Act, 1963' itself permits seeking declaration without further relief except in those cases where without seeking relief, mere declaration has no effect and such is not a position in the declaration of civil death of a person by a legal heir. Therefore, this Court holds that suit for mere declaration of civil death is very well maintainable and is not barred by Section 34 of the "Act, 1963' merely because further relief was not claimed.
Though it is true that Section 108 of the Evidence Act 1872 provides a presumption of civil death of a person who has been missing for more than RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 22 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:19:09 +0530 seven years, but, if any person gets affected by the missing of such person either by express or implied denial by any of the person, than he can very well file suit for a declaration of the death of the person being his legal heir."
21. "Therefore, in view of the law laid down above, it is clear that the appellants in the present case who are the legal heirs and are in need of death certificate for availing various benefits pertaining to the deceased Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli cannot be deprived of such a declaration especially, when there is a prayer for further relief in the form of issuance of death certificate. In my opinion, suit for declaration is maintainable in this case and Section 107 & 108 of the Act though, not creating substantive rights are in a sense creating certain rights which are in the nature of substantive rights. Both these points are decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.
POINT NO. (IV)
22. Regarding the Bar under Section 477 and 478 of the DMC Act, appellant has submitted that the present appeal is maintainable RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 23 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.09.09 16:19:18 +0530 and there is no requirement of compliance of those provisions as the present matter is not against the MCD or other similar authorities. I am in agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the appellant as this case has nothing to do with the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, and is concerned with the death of a person whose whereabouts were not known for the last seven years. Moreover, once a matter has reached the Court, it should not be dismissed on technical grounds, keeping in view the object of said provisions i.e. preventing matters from coming to Court and giving opportunity to the Government to settle the matter and avoid futile litigation and saving the public money. This point is also decided in favour of the appellant.
RELIEF
23. In view of the above observations, appeal filed by appellants is allowed with the following reliefs:-
(I) The Impugned Judgment/Order dated 16.01.2024 passed by Ld. CJ-03, SE is set aside,
(ii) A decree for declaration of death is passed of Sh.
Ram Saran Dass Ralli from the date of filing of the suit before Ld. Trial Court, and
(iii) Respondents are directed to issue death certificate in the name of Sh. Ram Saran Dass Ralli.
RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 24ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN Date: 2025.09.09 PASWAN 16:19:27 +0530
24. Ahlmad is directed to send copy of this judgment to Ld. Trial Court along with Trial Court record.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedANIL by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.09.09 16:19:36 +0530 Announced in open Court (ANIL KUMAR PASWAN) today on 09.09.2025 DJ-07, South East District, Saket Courts/Delhi RCA No. 12/2024 Rakesh Ralli & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 25 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.09.09 16:19:45 +0530