Javed Maslehuddin Ansari S/o Maslehuddin Ansari Age. 50Yrs, Occ. Private work R/o Aland Now Mumbai vs The Chief Officer TMC Aland — 3053/2025

Case under Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section 13(iii). Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES

CNR: KAKB220093812025

Filing Number

3053/2025

Filing Date

28-Oct-2025

Registration No

3053/2025

Registration Date

28-Oct-2025

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALAND

Judge

324-Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 14-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section 13(iii)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Javed Maslehuddin Ansari S/o Maslehuddin Ansari Age. 50Yrs, Occ. Private work R/o Aland Now Mumbai

    Adv. Ramesh Malkappa Tole

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Chief Officer TMC Aland

  2. 2.Shehar Banu W/o Maslehuddin Ansari, Age. 90Yr, Occ. Househod. R/o Aland Now at Baiganwad Govandi Mumbai, State Maharastra

  3. 3.Aleeya D/o Maslehuddin Ansari W/o Iftekhar Husen, Age. 65Yr, R/o Aland Now at Mumbai,

  4. 4.Moiz Ansari S/o Maslehuddin Ansari, Age. 60Yrs, Occ. Private work R/o Aland Now at Mumbai,

  5. 5.Waheed Ansari S/o Maslehuddin Ansari Age. 57Yrs, Occ. Private work R/o Aland Now at Mumbai

  6. 6.Arif Ansari S/o Maslehuddin Ansari Age. 53Yrs, Occ. Private work R/o Aland Now at Mumbai

  7. 7.Ishrat D/o Maslehuddin Ansari W/o Maheboob Shaikh, Age. 40Yr, Occ. Hosuehold R/o Aland Now at Mumbai

  8. 8.Mariya Begum D/o Maslehuddin Ansari W/o Mubeen Ansari, Age. 36Yr, Occ. R/o Aland Tq. Aland Dist. Kalburagi.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Case Summary: 3053/2025 Court Decision: The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Aland, allowed the petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The court directed the Chief Officer, TMC Aland to register the death of Maslehuddin Ansari S/o Shamshoddin Ansari (who died on 23-10-1993) in the official death register and issue a death certificate to the petitioner upon collection of prescribed fees. Key Reasoning: The petitioner, Javed Maslehuddin Ansari, proved through his testimony and documentary evidence (non-availability certificate and newspaper publications) that his father's death was not registered despite occurring over 30 years ago. Since the respondent failed to appear and contest the claim, the petitioner's unchallenged evidence established the grounds for registration. The court found no reason to disbelieve the petitioner and noted that registration was necessary to prevent hardship in obtaining property mutations and government benefits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Orders..

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    Orders..

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  6. 12-Jan-2026

    Appearance Of Party

    Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland

  7. 31-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 28-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3053/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 3053/2025 Court Decision: The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Aland, allowed the petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The court directed the Chief Officer, TMC Aland to register the death of Maslehuddin Ansari S/o Shamshoddin Ansari (who died on 23-10-1993) in the official death register and issue a death certificate to the petitioner upon collection of prescribed fees. Key Reasoning: The petitioner, Javed Maslehuddin Ansari, proved through his testimony and documentary evidence (non-availability certificate and newspaper publications) that his father's death was not registered despite occurring over 30 years ago. Since the respondent failed to appear and contest the claim, the petitioner's unchallenged evidence established the grounds for registration. The court found no reason to disbelieve the petitioner and noted that registration was necessary to prevent hardship in obtaining property mutations and government benefits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case