HUCHAMMA vs THAHSILDAR — 820/2025

Case under Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section U/S13(3). Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES

CNR: KAMS310037022025

Filing Number

812/2025

Filing Date

11-Dec-2025

Registration No

820/2025

Registration Date

16-Dec-2025

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUNSUR

Judge

447-Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 09-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section U/S13(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HUCHAMMA

    Adv. RAVI. P

  2. 2.GOWRAMMA

  3. 3.DEVRAJU

  4. 4.NAVEENA KUMARI

  5. 5.GAVISHA

  6. 6.KEERTHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THAHSILDAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Orders

    The court allowed the petition filed under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, directing the Tahashildar to register the death of Late Mahadevamma W/o Basavarajegowda, who died on 08.09.2020. The court accepted the petitioners' unchallenged evidence supported by a non-availability certificate, genealogical tree, and newspaper publications, finding no grounds to disbelieve their testimony since the respondent remained absent and offered no counter-evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  5. 19-Jan-2026

    Paper Publication

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Hunsur

  6. 16-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 11-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 820/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the petition filed under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, directing the Tahashildar to register the death of Late Mahadevamma W/o Basavarajegowda, who died on 08.09.2020. The court accepted the petitioners' unchallenged evidence supported by a non-availability certificate, genealogical tree, and newspaper publications, finding no grounds to disbelieve their testimony since the respondent remained absent and offered no counter-evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case