SMT. RAJ RANI versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 763 · Decided: 03-05-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
• 
. SMT. RAJ RANI 
v. 
CHIEF SETTLEMENT. COMMISSIONER DELHI AND ORS . 
• 
May 3, 1984 
[D A. QESAI, AMARENDRA NA TH SEN AND R.B .MISRA JJ .] 
Evidence Act-S. 35-Scope of • . fJ·hether .certificate of _di:ath. given 
by respectable persons of the place where decea.\ed once resided admis~ible in 
evidence. Held no. 
Nanak Chand, father of tbe appeJJ;nt, a displiced 'person from West 
Pakistan and having a verified claim in tlis name ·for _some Jand, disappeared 
~ome time in December 1954. 
A report about his_ disappearance was 
lodged by the aopellant's brother, Dewan Chand, Respondent No. 2·, with 
t.he local. police-in Punjab. 
Tbe police made an enquiry ill the matter and 
ultimately aave out that Nanak Chand could not be traced. 
In response to 
a: notice isiiued ~o the year 19'6 in suo 1noto revij)ion in regard to.the verified 
claim, jn tho absrnce or Nanak Charid, Dewnn· Chand appeared and alleaed 
t.bat Nanak Chand.bad died leaving behind three. sons il;icluding him as the 
only Ie:gal heirS. 
Dewan Cbilnd produced a certificate to the effect that 
Nanak ·Chand had died one year and 10 months prior to 25th Octo.bCr, 
1956. 
The certificate \Vas issued on his request by some rfspectable 
persons .of 
the place 
wber~ lbe family once resided. 
The· Additional 
Settlement Commissioner, Delhi, by his order d1ted. 27th October, 1956 
allowed the application for substitutiorl and directed the three sons to be 
brougqt on record as legal 
repre~entative!'i of the ·deceased Nanak Chand 
although NaAak Chand bad left behind three 1!ons, three daughters including 
the·appellant and his widow. 
The appellant, in an attempt to have her 
name substitufedt) · filed a revision application against the order ·of the 
Additional Settlement Commissioner before the Chief Settlefnent Cornmis~ 
sloner under. s 5.of the Di~placed Persons· (Claims) St1pplementary Act, 
1954 .. 
By his order dated 2.Sth September, 1965, the Chief SetUemeot 
.- Commissioner ccnfirrned the orde_r of the Additional Settlement Commis .. 
sioner dated 
27th October, 1956 
an~ dismissed the revision appli .. 
ca.tion of -the appe-llant without affording; an ·opportunity of being_ heard to 
the rppella-nt. 
The High Co1,lr1 dismissed the appellanfs writ petition and 
Letters_ Patent Appeal against the order o~ the Chief ·settlement Commis!!'ioner. 
The High Court observed. 1J1at the Additional Settlement Commissioner 
acted right11 in re1'ing upon 1he death ceftificate _ prci;luc.ed by'"bewan·Chand 
and ~ubstilutir.g the sons .of Nnnak Chand as heirs of the deceased of his 
~,riP,rd cl'aim. 
Hence this appeal. 
,'\llowiog t!ie appeal, . 
., 
763 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
764 
A 
B 
C. 
D 
E 
G 
H 
• 
• 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1984) 3 S.C R, . - '1 
HELD.: 
A certificate given by 
re~pectable persons of :the place 
. where the d>tceasrd once resided,- to say the least, is not ad.missible in 
f:v.idence, 
Sec. ~5 of 1he evidence 
Act 
p~ovides that an elltry in any 
public or other official book,·register, or record, stating a fact in issue or 
reiCvant fd'ct, and mede by a public servant in the disCbarge of his official 
duty,_ or by _any 01her person· in performance A of a duty, 
specially 
enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or reco·rd iS 
kept; is itself a relevant fact. [769B·C] 
· 
In the instant case· a certificate by certain respectable person of tho 
place whCre the family once resided does·not satisfy the fequirements of 
s.·35 of the evidei;icC Act. 
Tberfl is no. p_roof th,at any statutory duty WM 
cast upon the person issiiing the certificate to keep a record of birth 3nd 
death .and- therefore, the certificate of death has- no evldeotiary value. · It 
is Very · easy for .a·. person to obtain a deat-h certificate from 'the soca11ed 
respectable persons in ordfr to grab the property.· If according to Dewan 
Chand, Nanak Charid had died he~ust also indicate where did be die aD.d 
it is the pl_ace. of .his· ~eath which will be _relevant and not the place of bis 
birth or residence. 
The certificate obviously is not of -the· place where 
:Nanak.Chand d~ed". The authorities have· graveJy-erred in relying upon tho 
cortific,ate of death which was inadmissible in evidence. [769D·E) 
· 
To •ee whether daughters would be entitled to interest in the pro· 
perty left by Nanak Chand will depend upon the death of Nanak Chand 
before .. or after the enforcement of Hindu Suctession Act·and to decide as 
to when'Nanak Chand died it wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.