W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 1 of 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026

CNR NO.ODHC010086102026

(In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India)

Baidehi Behera … Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Faradish, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr.T.K.Dash, AGA

Mrs.M.Tripathy, Advocate

(for O.P.No.3 & 4)

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing : 2

nd

July, 2026

Date of Judgment : 6

th

August, 2026

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Present writ petition is directed assailing the order of the Chief

Manager, State Bank of India at Karanjia Branch (O.P.No.4) rejecting

the prayer for settlement of claim of her deceased husband due to

error in date of death in the Death Certificate. WP(C)/4157/2026

ODHC010086102026

2026:OHC:13

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 2 of 16

2. The Petitioner namely, Baidehi Behera is the wife of Rabindra

Nath Behera, whose death has been declared as civil death by the

decree of learned Civil Court dated 27

th

February 2024. Late Rabindra

Nath Behera was serving as Head Messenger at State Bank of India in

Karanjia Branch. On 10

th

December 2007 after office hour he did not

return to his house and went missing. Consequently, present

Petitioner, being the wife, lodged missing FIR at Karanjia Police

Station vide MMR No.7 dated 12

th

December 2007. The Petitioner

and other family members of late Rabindra Nath Behera searched for

him to their best leaving no stone unturned to get trace of Rabindra

Nath Behera, and in the meanwhile, around fifteen years passed away.

The Petitioner then filed C.S.No.162 of 2022 in the Court of the

learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Karanjia praying to declare

Rabindra Nath Behera as civil death. The learned Civil Court vide

decree dated 27

th

February 2024 decreed the suit declaring that

Rabindra Nath Behera is dead and civil death of Rabindra Nath

Behera stands declared. Then on the application of the Petitioner and

based on the declaration of learned Civil Court, the Department of

Health and Family Welfare of Karanjia NAC issued the Certificate of

Death in terms of Section 12/17 of the Registration of Births and

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 3 of 16

Deaths Act and Rules stating the date of death of Rabindra Nath

Behera on 10

th

December 2007.

3. The Petitioner applied for settlement of her claim with the Bank

authority along with all required documents, and finally Opposite

Party No.4, i.e. the Chief Manager vide his letter dated 15

th

November

2025 rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for settlement of claim of the

deceased on the ground that the date of death of deceased recorded in

the Death Certificate is erroneous and further advised to correct the

same before the appropriate authority. As per the memorandum

attached to the letter dated 15

th

October 2025 (Annexure-5) of

Opposite Party No.4, it is mentioned that the Registrar erroneously

mentioned the date of missing as the date of death, which is not

legally correct. It is important to reproduce the relevant portion of the

said memorandum, which has been formed as part of rejection letter

of the authority.

“2. It is observed that Shri Rabindra Nath Behera has been

missing since 10.12.2007. Long after completion of statutory

period of seven years, his family members approached the

competent Civil Court. The Civil Court, vide judgment and decree

dated 27.02.2024, declared Shri Behera to be “civilly death” in

accordance with Section 108 of the Evidence Act,1872. Based on

the Court’s order, the Registrar of Births and Deaths issued a

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 4 of 16

Death Certificate. However, the Registrar erroneously mentioned

the date of missing 10.12.2007 as the sustainable date.

3. As held in LIC of India v. Anuradha (104), the presumption

of death applies only to the fact of death, not to the exact date. In

absence of contrary proof the date of death is reckoned from the

date of the Court’s declaration. Hence, the legally date of death is

27.02.2024, not 10.12.2007. The Registrar has erroneously

recorded the “date of missing” as the “date of death” under Section

15 of the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, such an error

can be corrected by the Registrar/Chief Registrar on application

with the Court order if refused, the remedy lies before the Chief

Registrar/High Court.

4. In light of the above, the date of death of Shri Behera

should be treated as 27.02.2024, i.e. the date of declaration by the

Civil Court. The entry made by the Registrar mentioning

10.12.2007 as the date of death is legally unsustainable and

requires rectification. The concerned legal heirs may immediately

file an application under Section 15 of the Registration of Births

and Deaths Act, 1969, enclosing the certified copy of the Civil

Court’s judgment dated 27.02.2024, for correction of the death

register and issuance of a fresh death certificate. If such application

is not allowed, the remedy lies before the Chief Registrar /High

Court for appropriate directions.”

4. The Petitioner challenges such communication made by the

authority rejecting her claim for settlement of claim of deceased

Rabindra Nath Behera by stating that the Bank Aauthority, who was

the employer of the deceased Rabindra Nath Behera, does not possess

any authority to say that the Registrar of Births and Deaths has

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 5 of 16

erroneously recorded the date of death as such, and he has no

authority to dispute the date of death mentioned in the Death

Certificate, which is a public document.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that in the matter of

civil death, after declaration of the Court to that effect, all such

presumptions as to the actual date of death are closed resting on the

date of death declared by the statutory authority i.e. the Registrar of

Births and Deaths. It would be grossly illegal to accept any other date

of death than the date mentioned in the Death Certificate issued by the

competent statutory authority. It is submitted on behalf of the

Petitioner that the declaration made by the learned Civil Court in case

of civil death is done after completion of the statutory period and the

provisions of the Indian Evidence Act or Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniym do not prescribe any such date to be presumed as the date

of death.

6. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the Bank-Opposite

Parties that in the matter of civil death, the same is required to be

declared by the decree of Civil Court and thus no such death prior to

the date of declaration by the Court could be construed as the date of

death. The Opposite Parties, in this regard, relies on the decision of

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 6 of 16

LIC of India vrs. Anuradha, (2004) 10 SCC 131 to support their

stand.

7. In the case at hand, the admitted facts remain that Rabindra

Nath Behera went on missing since 10

th

December 2007. The missing

report was lodged before the police on 12

th

December 2007 and

learned Civil Court declared civil death of Rabindra Nath Behera by

decree dated 27

th

February 2024. It is also admitted that the Death

Certificate, in terms of the provisions of Registration of Births and

Deaths Act, 1969 and the Rules thereof, has been issued on 24

th

July

2007 stating the date of death on 10

th

December 2007. Thus, the only

dispute remains to be adjudicated is whether the date of death of

deceased Rabindra Nath Behera to be accepted from the date of

missing as mentioned in the Death Certificate or to be treated from the

date of declaration made by the learned Civil Court in the decree.

8. On the backdrop of the controversy and in view of the admitted

facts, the questions fall for determination are, whether the employer

(Bank) can question the recorded date of birth in the Death Certificate

as erroneous to deviate from the same and secondly, what would be

the acceptable date of death in the matter of civil death.

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 7 of 16

9. Section 8 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act requires

registration of the births and deaths and Section 12 entitles the

informant to get copy of extract of Register of Births and Deaths in

the prescribed particulars. Further, Section 17 specifies that all such

extracts given shall be certified by the Registrar or any other Officer

authorized on their behalf and shall be admissible in evidence for the

purpose of proving the birth and death to which the entry relates. In

the case at hand, the Death Certificate dated 24

th

July 2024

(Annexure-2) issued vide Registration No.280/2024 is never

challenged, as on date, by any authority or any person including the

Opposite Parties. Issuance of Death Certificate, in terms of the

statutory provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act and

Rules, is left unquestioned. But, the Bank-Opposite Parties being the

employer of the deceased refused to accept recording of such date of

death in the Death Certificate on the ground that the same is erroneous

and further advised the Petitioner to correct the same. Section 15 of

Registration of Births and Deaths Act prescribes the provisions for

correction of entry of birth or death in the register, appearing

erroneous to the satisfaction of the Registrar, either to correct it or to

cancel it. Section 15 reads as follows:

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 8 of 16

“15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of

births and deaths.-If it is proved to the satisfaction of the

Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept

by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has

been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such

rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to

the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such

entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel

the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration

of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add

thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.”

Therefore, it is only the Registrar who is authorized to correct any

entry made in the register of births and deaths upon his satisfaction

and no one else.

10. The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act or the Bharatiya

Sakshya Adhiniyum attach the presumption of correctness and

genuineness of the public documents.

11. In Uli Bewa vrs. Mana Bewa, I.L.R. 1963 Cuttack 451, this

Court has held that Death Register by Municipality comes within the

definition of a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act

and the entries therein could be proved by production of certified

copies under Section 77 of the Evidence Act. The document is

therefore by itself a piece of evidence admissible under Section 35 of

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 9 of 16

the Evidence Act. There is a presumption under Section 114 of the

Evidence Act that the entry was properly made by a public servant in

discharge of his official duty and formal proof of the fact that a

particular officer made the entry is not necessary.

12. In Gopichand Arya vrs. Smt.Bedamo Kuer, AIR 1966 Patna

231, it is stated that the Death Certificate is the most important

document to prove the date of death since the entry was made by a

public servant in due discharge of his official duty. This being a

public document, presumption of correctness is attached to it and

therefore heavy onus lies on the party who wants to discharge the

onus.

13. In the present case at hand, the Death Certificate at Annexure-2

is left unchallenged as on date and as per the submissions of the

Petitioner, the same has been accepted by the LIC of India as correct,

to release the death benefits in favour of the dependants. Further, said

Death Certificate at Anenxure-2 stands genuine till date as it is, to

presume the correctness in respect of the entries made therein,

particularly regarding the date of death of the deceased. Therefore, no

option lies with the Bank-Opposite Parties to dispute the date of death

to describe the same as erroneous against such entry made in the

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 10 of 16

Death Certificate. As stated earlier, such power remains with the

Registrar only, to make any correction in respect of any entry in the

Register of Births and Deaths in terms of Section 15 of the Act and no

other authority is authorized to discard the same as unacceptable or to

say as an erroneous entry.

14. In LIC of India vrs. Anuradha (supra), the issue arose before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to payment of life insurance

benefits concerning non-payment of premium from the date of

missing of the insured whose civil death was declared subsequently.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that when an issue arises

as to the date or time of death, the same shall have to be determined

on evidence, direct or circumstantial, and not by assumption or

presumption. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the said decision are reproduced below:

“2. A common question of law centering around Sections

107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 arises for

decision in these two appeals.

xxx xxx xxx

12. Neither Section 108 of the Evidence Act nor logic, reason

or sense permit a presumption or assumption being drawn or

made that the person not heard of for seven years was dead

on the date of his disappearance or soon after the date and

time on which he was last seen. The only inference

permissible to be drawn and based on the presumption is that

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 11 of 16

the man was dead at the time when the question arose subject

to a period of seven years' absence and being unheard of

having elapsed before that time. The presumption stands

unrebutted for failure of the contesting party to prove that

such man was alive either on the date on which the dispute

arose or at any time before that so as to break the period of

seven years counted backwards from the date on which the

question arose for determination. At what point of time the

person was dead is not a matter of presumption but of

evidence, factual or circumstantial, and the onus of proving

that the death had taken place at any given point of time or

date since the disappearance or within the period of seven

years lies on the person who stakes the claim, the

establishment of which will depend on proof of the date or

time of death.

13. A presumption assists a party in discharging the burden

of proof by taking advantage of presumption arising in his

favour dispensing with the need of adducing evidence which

may or may not be available. Phipson and Elliott have

observed in Manual of the Law of Evidence (11th Edn., at p.

77) that although there is almost invariably a logical

connection between basic fact and presumed fact, in the case

of most presumptions it is by no means intellectually

compelling. In our opinion, a presumption of fact or law,

which has gained recognition in statute or by successive

judicial pronouncements spread over the years, cannot be

stretched beyond the limits permitted by the statute or

beyond the contemplation spelled out from the logic, reason

and sense prevailing with the judges, having written opinions

valued as precedents, so as to draw such other inferences as

are not contemplated.

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 12 of 16

14. On the basis of the abovesaid authorities, we

unhesitatingly arrive at a conclusion which we sum up in the

following words: the law as to presumption of death remains

the same whether in the 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 the 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 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 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. 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

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 13 of 16

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.

15. If an issue may arise as to the date or time of death the

same shall have to be determined on evidence, direct or

circumstantial, and not by assumption or presumption. The

burden of proof would lie on the person who makes assertion

of death having taken place at a given date or time in order to

succeed in his claim. Rarely may it be permissible to proceed

on the premise that the death had occurred on any given date

before which the period of seven years' absence was shown

to have elapsed.

16. We cannot, therefore, countenance the view taken by the

High Court in either of the two appeals that on the expiry of

seven years by the time the issue came to be raised in the

Consumer Forum or civil court and evidence was adduced

that the person was not heard of for a period of seven years

by the wife and/or family members of the person then not

only could the death be presumed but it could also be

assumed that the presumed death had synchronised with the

date when he was reported to be missing or that the date and

time of death could be correlated to the point of time

coinciding with the commencement of calculation of seven

years backwards from the date of initiation of legal

proceedings. In order to successfully maintain the claim for

benefit under the insurance policies, it is necessary for the

policy to have been kept alive by punctual payment of

premiums until the claim was made. The appellant LIC was

justified in turning down the claims by pleading that the

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 14 of 16

policies had lapsed and all that could be paid to the claimants

was the paid-up value of the policies.”

15. In the instant case at hand, the deceased went missing on 10

th

December 2007, the civil suit for declaration of civil death was filed

on 16

th

July 2022 and decreed on 27

th

February 2024. As explained

in the decision of LIC of India vrs. Anuradha (supra), the question

of time of death is a question of facts, to be determined by evidence,

factual or circumstantial and not a presumption. Section 108 of the

Indian Evidence Act reads that, “Burden of proving that person is

alive who has not been heard of seven years – provided that when

the question is whether a man is alive or dead and it is proved that

he 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 to the person who affirms it.”

Thus, after declaration of civil death by decree of the Civil Court,

the statutory competent authority, i.e. the Registrar of Births and

Deaths, has issued the Death Certificate under Annexure-2

mentioning the date of death on 10

th

December 2007.

16. As stated earlier, the Death Certificate issued under

Annexure-2 is undisputedly a public document. The Hon’ble

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 15 of 16

Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi vrs. Anand Purohit, AIR

1988 (SC) 1796, have held at para-3(a) that;

“3 (a) To render a document admissible under Section 35 of

the Evidence Act, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly,

entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official

book, register or record, secondly, it must be an entry stating

a fact in issue or relevant fact; and thirdly, it must be made

by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any

other person in performance of a duly specially enjoined by

law.”

17. Here, the Death Certificate at Annexure-2, issued as per the

statutory provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act

and Rules made thereof, is an unchallenged and unquestioned

document and therefore, the entries made therein are duly proved on

production of certified copy of the same. Such entries made in the

Death Certificate are binding on all such persons and authorities.

So, the Bank-Opposite Parties are prohibited to dispute such entries

made in the Death Certificate without having jurisdiction in that

respect. It is not that the Bank-Opposite Parties are producing any

material evidence to deny the date of death mentioned in the Death

Certificate, but simply denies to accept such date of death. This is

impermissible on the part of the Bank Authority. It is stated here

that such entries made in the Death Certificate under Annexure-2 in

W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 16 of 16

terms of the statutory provisions relating to it, is binding on the

Bank Authority.

18. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the

impugned order dated 15

th

October 2025 under Annexure-5 along

with the attachments is set aside. Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 are

directed to release the claim of settlement of late Rabindra Nath

Behera in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two months from

today, if no other legal impediment is there.

(B.P. Routray)

Judge

C.R.Biswal, A.R.-cum-Sr.Seretary