The Odisha High Court clarified that a death certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is a public document whose recorded date of death is binding on all authorities, including an employer, and can be corrected only by the Registrar under Section 15.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Baidehi Behera, wife of the late Rabindra Nath Behera, sought settlement of a claim with the State Bank of India, Karanjia Branch. The bank rejected the claim on the ground that the date of death recorded in the death certificate was erroneous.
Key Facts
- Rabindra Nath Behera, Head Messenger at SBI Karanjia, went missing on 10 December 2007.
- A missing FIR was lodged at Karanjia Police Station on 12 December 2007 (MMR No.7).
- After more than fifteen years, the petitioner filed C.S. No.162 of 2022 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Karanjia, seeking a declaration of civil death.
- The Civil Court decreed on 27 February 2024 that Rabindra Nath Behera was civilly dead under Section 108 of the Evidence Act.
- The Department of Health and Family Welfare, Karanjia NAC, issued a Death Certificate under Sections 12/17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, stating the date of death as 10 December 2007 (Registration No.280/2024, dated 24 July 2024).
- The bank, through its Chief Manager, issued a rejection letter dated 15 November 2025, citing the alleged error in the death certificate.
- The bank’s memorandum dated 15 October 2025 reiterated that the date of missing was incorrectly recorded as the date of death.
- The petitioner filed writ petition WP(C) No.4157 of 2026 under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution.
Procedural History
- 12 December 2007: FIR lodged for missing person.
- 27 February 2024: Civil Court decree declaring civil death.
- 24 July 2024: Death Certificate issued by Registrar.
- 15 October 2025: Bank’s memorandum advising correction of death certificate.
- 15 November 2025: Bank’s rejection letter to petitioner.
- 2 July 2026: Date of hearing of the writ petition.
- 6 August 2026: Date of judgment.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought an order directing the State Bank of India, Karanjia Branch, to release the settlement claim of the deceased husband without further delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether (1) the employer (State Bank of India) can dispute the date of death recorded in a death certificate issued by the Registrar under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and (2) what date should be accepted as the legal date of death in a civil death scenario.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the death certificate is a public document admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, enjoys a presumption of correctness, and can be corrected only by the Registrar under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. The petitioner relied on LIC of India v. Anuradha and Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit to argue that the date of death must be taken from the statutory authority’s certificate, not the employer’s view.
For the Respondent
The bank argued that the date of death recorded as the missing date was erroneous and that the employer, as the deceased’s last employer, could question the entry. It relied on the same LIC of India v. Anuradha decision, asserting that the presumption of death does not fix the exact date and that the employer could seek correction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the death certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, is a public document whose entries are presumed correct under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. It reiterated the principle that correction of any entry in the register is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 15 of the Act.
"the Death Certificate ... is binding on the Bank Authority."
The Court examined the statutory framework governing civil death. Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act create a presumption of death after a period of seven years of non-hearing, but they do not prescribe a specific date of death. The Court cited LIC of India v. Anuradha to emphasize that the date of death is a factual issue to be proved on evidence, not a matter of presumption.
It further held that once a civil court declares a person civilly dead, the statutory authority (Registrar) issues a death certificate reflecting the date of death as per its records. The Court rejected the bank’s contention that it could unilaterally deem the certificate erroneous, stating that only the Registrar may correct the entry under Section 15, and any refusal can be challenged before the Chief Registrar or the High Court.
The Court distinguished the bank’s argument from the earlier High Court rulings that allowed correction only when the Registrar is satisfied of the error. It affirmed that the burden of proving an error lies on the party seeking correction, not on the authority that issued the certificate.
Finally, the Court observed that the death certificate had not been challenged by any other authority, including the LIC, and therefore enjoyed the full force of a public document. Consequently, the bank’s refusal to accept the certificate amounted to an impermissible denial of a statutory fact.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 15 October 2025 issued by the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Karanjia Branch, is set aside. Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 are directed to release the settlement claim of the petitioner within two months of this judgment, i.e., by 6 October 2026. No monetary award is specified; the direction is purely procedural.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Death Certificate as Conclusive Evidence
- A death certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act is a public document and enjoys a presumption of correctness.
- Any dispute over the date of death must be raised before the Registrar under Section 15, not by an employer or other third party.
Burden of Proof Lies With the Party Challenging
- The party alleging an error bears the burden of proving the mistake to the satisfaction of the Registrar.
- Courts will not entertain employer objections absent a statutory correction.
Practical Steps for Practitioners
- Advise clients to obtain a certified copy of the death certificate and, if necessary, file an application under Section 15 for correction.
- When representing banks or insurers, ensure that any objection to the date of death is supported by a formal correction order, not merely a subjective view.
- Cite LIC of India v. Anuradha and Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit for the presumption of correctness of public documents.
