Nagappa S/o Narasappa Age 37 yrs Occ Coolie R/o Diggaon Village vs The Registrar Birth and Death Tahasil Office Chittapur — 3340/2025
Case under Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section 13. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 04th April 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAKB520045262025
Filing Number
3340/2025
Filing Date
03-Dec-2025
Registration No
3340/2025
Registration Date
03-Dec-2025
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITAPUR
Judge
326-Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC, Chittapur
Decision Date
04-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Last updated 07-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Nagappa S/o Narasappa Age 37 yrs Occ Coolie R/o Diggaon Village
Adv. B.B.Doddamani
Respondent(s)
-
1.The Registrar Birth and Death Tahasil Office Chittapur
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-Apr-2026
OrdersView PDF
Summary The Civil Judge & JMFC, Chittapur allowed Nagappa's petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, directing the Registrar to register the death of his brother Dyavappa (dated 10.01.2010) upon payment of requisite penalty. The court found the petitioner's testimony credible, supported by documentary evidence including a non-availability certificate and newspaper publications, and noted that no opposing party contested the claim despite public notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-Apr-2026
Disposed
Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC, Chittapur
-
07-Mar-2026
Orders
Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC, Chittapur
-
20-Feb-2026
Orders
Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC, Chittapur
-
29-Jan-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
29-Jan-2026
Orders
Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC, Chittapur
-
10-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 3340/2025
Summary The Civil Judge & JMFC, Chittapur allowed Nagappa's petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, directing the Registrar to register the death of his brother Dyavappa (dated 10.01.2010) upon payment of requisite penalty. The court found the petitioner's testimony credible, supported by documentary evidence including a non-availability certificate and newspaper publications, and noted that no opposing party contested the claim despite public notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts