Varalakshmi vs The Tahsildar, Registrar of Birth and Deaths — 48/2026

Case under Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section U/Sec.13(3). Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK-ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Crl. Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES

CNR: KARN420002892026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

29-01-2026

Filing Number

48/2026

Filing Date

10-02-2026

Registration No

48/2026

Registration Date

10-02-2026

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI

Judge

887-ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK-ADALAT

FIR Details

Police Station

MAGADI PS

Year

0

Acts & Sections

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS ACT Section U/Sec.13(3)

Petitioner(s)

Varalakshmi

Adv. RAVI T M

Respondent(s)

The Tahsildar, Registrar of Birth and Deaths

Hearing History

Judge: 887-ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

14-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

CALL ON LOK ADALTH

28-02-2026

SUMMONS

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
Orders

Summary of Case 48/2026 (Varalakshmi v. Tahsildar, Registrar of Birth and Deaths) The National Lok Adalath allowed petitioner Varalakshmi's petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, to register her daughter's date of birth as 25-11-2007 after verifying the supporting documents were satisfactory. The court directed the Registrar to enter this date in the register upon collection of prescribed fees, clarifying that this entry is not conclusive proof and can be disputed in future criminal proceedings, and is valid only for submission to the Registrar's office. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 48/2026 (Varalakshmi v. Tahsildar, Registrar of Birth and Deaths) The National Lok Adalath allowed petitioner Varalakshmi's petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, to register her daughter's date of birth as 25-11-2007 after verifying the supporting documents were satisfactory. The court directed the Registrar to enter this date in the register upon collection of prescribed fees, clarifying that this entry is not conclusive proof and can be disputed in future criminal proceedings, and is valid only for submission to the Registrar's office. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case