Mujubur Rahaman S/o. Mohammad Haneefsab vs The Tahasildara, Harapanahalli — 1015/2025
Case under Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section U/s.13(3). Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 18th March 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
CNR: KAVN510038762025
e-Filing Number
29-11-2025
Filing Number
1016/2025
Filing Date
01-12-2025
Registration No
1015/2025
Registration Date
01-12-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI
Judge
254-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mujubur Rahaman S/o. Mohammad Haneefsab
Adv. BHP
Respondent(s)
The Tahasildara, Harapanahalli
Hearing History
Judge: 254-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Disposed
ORDERS
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES/ADVOCATES-C
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES/ADVOCATES-C
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES/ADVOCATES-C
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 07-02-2026 | APPEARANCE OF PARTIES/ADVOCATES-C | |
| 03-01-2026 | APPEARANCE OF PARTIES/ADVOCATES-C | |
| 01-12-2025 | APPEARANCE OF PARTIES/ADVOCATES-C |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Civil Judge of Harapanahalli allowed Mujubur Rahaman's petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, directing the Tahasildar to register his birth (10.06.1978, Uchangidurga village) and issue a birth certificate. The court found the petitioner's unchallenged evidence (Aadhar card, age certificate) sufficient and the respondent's absence as default, relying on Karnataka High Court precedent that the factum of birth—not the exact date—is the material consideration in such proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Civil Judge of Harapanahalli allowed Mujubur Rahaman's petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, directing the Tahasildar to register his birth (10.06.1978, Uchangidurga village) and issue a birth certificate. The court found the petitioner's unchallenged evidence (Aadhar card, age certificate) sufficient and the respondent's absence as default, relying on Karnataka High Court precedent that the factum of birth—not the exact date—is the material consideration in such proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts