Orissa High Court
Baidehi Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others on 6 August, 2026
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
WP(C)/4157/2026
Signature Not Verified ODHC010086102026
Digitally Signed 2026:OHC:13
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026
CNR NO.ODHC010086102026
(In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Baidehi Behera ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Faradish, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr.T.K.Dash, AGA
Mrs.M.Tripathy, Advocate
(for O.P.No.3 & 4)
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
———————————————————————————
Date of Hearing : 2nd July, 2026
Date of Judgment : 6th August, 2026
———————————————————————————
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Present writ petition is directed assailing the order of the Chief
Manager, State Bank of India at Karanjia Branch (O.P.No.4) rejecting
the prayer for settlement of claim of her deceased husband due to
error in date of death in the Death Certificate.
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 1 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
2. The Petitioner namely, Baidehi Behera is the wife of Rabindra
Nath Behera, whose death has been declared as civil death by the
decree of learned Civil Court dated 27th February 2024. Late Rabindra
Nath Behera was serving as Head Messenger at State Bank of India in
Karanjia Branch. On 10th December 2007 after office hour he did not
return to his house and went missing. Consequently, present
Petitioner, being the wife, lodged missing FIR at Karanjia Police
Station vide MMR No.7 dated 12th December 2007. The Petitioner
and other family members of late Rabindra Nath Behera searched for
him to their best leaving no stone unturned to get trace of Rabindra
Nath Behera, and in the meanwhile, around fifteen years passed away.
The Petitioner then filed C.S.No.162 of 2022 in the Court of the
learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Karanjia praying to declare
Rabindra Nath Behera as civil death. The learned Civil Court vide
decree dated 27th February 2024 decreed the suit declaring that
Rabindra Nath Behera is dead and civil death of Rabindra Nath
Behera stands declared. Then on the application of the Petitioner and
based on the declaration of learned Civil Court, the Department of
Health and Family Welfare of Karanjia NAC issued the Certificate of
Death in terms of Section 12/17 of the Registration of Births and
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
Deaths Act and Rules stating the date of death of Rabindra Nath
Behera on 10th December 2007.
3. The Petitioner applied for settlement of her claim with the Bank
authority along with all required documents, and finally Opposite
Party No.4, i.e. the Chief Manager vide his letter dated 15th November
2025 rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for settlement of claim of the
deceased on the ground that the date of death of deceased recorded in
the Death Certificate is erroneous and further advised to correct the
same before the appropriate authority. As per the memorandum
attached to the letter dated 15th October 2025 (Annexure-5) of
Opposite Party No.4, it is mentioned that the Registrar erroneously
mentioned the date of missing as the date of death, which is not
legally correct. It is important to reproduce the relevant portion of the
said memorandum, which has been formed as part of rejection letter
of the authority.
“2. It is observed that Shri Rabindra Nath Behera has been
missing since 10.12.2007. Long after completion of statutory
period of seven years, his family members approached the
competent Civil Court. The Civil Court, vide judgment and decree
dated 27.02.2024, declared Shri Behera to be “civilly death” in
accordance with Section 108 of the Evidence Act,1872. Based on
the Court’s order, the Registrar of Births and Deaths issued aW.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
Death Certificate. However, the Registrar erroneously mentioned
the date of missing 10.12.2007 as the sustainable date.
3. As held in LIC of India v. Anuradha (104), the presumption
of death applies only to the fact of death, not to the exact date. In
absence of contrary proof the date of death is reckoned from the
date of the Court’s declaration. Hence, the legally date of death is
27.02.2024, not 10.12.2007. The Registrar has erroneously
recorded the “date of missing” as the “date of death” under Section
15 of the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, such an error
can be corrected by the Registrar/Chief Registrar on application
with the Court order if refused, the remedy lies before the Chief
Registrar/High Court.
4. In light of the above, the date of death of Shri Behera
should be treated as 27.02.2024, i.e. the date of declaration by the
Civil Court. The entry made by the Registrar mentioning
10.12.2007 as the date of death is legally unsustainable and
requires rectification. The concerned legal heirs may immediately
file an application under Section 15 of the Registration of Births
and Deaths Act, 1969, enclosing the certified copy of the Civil
Court’s judgment dated 27.02.2024, for correction of the death
register and issuance of a fresh death certificate. If such application
is not allowed, the remedy lies before the Chief Registrar /High
Court for appropriate directions.”
4. The Petitioner challenges such communication made by the
authority rejecting her claim for settlement of claim of deceased
Rabindra Nath Behera by stating that the Bank Aauthority, who was
the employer of the deceased Rabindra Nath Behera, does not possess
any authority to say that the Registrar of Births and Deaths has
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
erroneously recorded the date of death as such, and he has no
authority to dispute the date of death mentioned in the Death
Certificate, which is a public document.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that in the matter of
civil death, after declaration of the Court to that effect, all such
presumptions as to the actual date of death are closed resting on the
date of death declared by the statutory authority i.e. the Registrar of
Births and Deaths. It would be grossly illegal to accept any other date
of death than the date mentioned in the Death Certificate issued by the
competent statutory authority. It is submitted on behalf of the
Petitioner that the declaration made by the learned Civil Court in case
of civil death is done after completion of the statutory period and the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act or Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniym do not prescribe any such date to be presumed as the date
of death.
6. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the Bank-Opposite
Parties that in the matter of civil death, the same is required to be
declared by the decree of Civil Court and thus no such death prior to
the date of declaration by the Court could be construed as the date of
death. The Opposite Parties, in this regard, relies on the decision of
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
LIC of India vrs. Anuradha, (2004) 10 SCC 131 to support their
stand.
7. In the case at hand, the admitted facts remain that Rabindra
Nath Behera went on missing since 10th December 2007. The missing
report was lodged before the police on 12th December 2007 and
learned Civil Court declared civil death of Rabindra Nath Behera by
decree dated 27th February 2024. It is also admitted that the Death
Certificate, in terms of the provisions of Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 and the Rules thereof, has been issued on 24th July
2007 stating the date of death on 10th December 2007. Thus, the only
dispute remains to be adjudicated is whether the date of death of
deceased Rabindra Nath Behera to be accepted from the date of
missing as mentioned in the Death Certificate or to be treated from the
date of declaration made by the learned Civil Court in the decree.
8. On the backdrop of the controversy and in view of the admitted
facts, the questions fall for determination are, whether the employer
(Bank) can question the recorded date of birth in the Death Certificate
as erroneous to deviate from the same and secondly, what would be
the acceptable date of death in the matter of civil death.
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
9. Section 8 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act requires
registration of the births and deaths and Section 12 entitles the
informant to get copy of extract of Register of Births and Deaths in
the prescribed particulars. Further, Section 17 specifies that all such
extracts given shall be certified by the Registrar or any other Officer
authorized on their behalf and shall be admissible in evidence for the
purpose of proving the birth and death to which the entry relates. In
the case at hand, the Death Certificate dated 24th July 2024
(Annexure-2) issued vide Registration No.280/2024 is never
challenged, as on date, by any authority or any person including the
Opposite Parties. Issuance of Death Certificate, in terms of the
statutory provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act and
Rules, is left unquestioned. But, the Bank-Opposite Parties being the
employer of the deceased refused to accept recording of such date of
death in the Death Certificate on the ground that the same is erroneous
and further advised the Petitioner to correct the same. Section 15 of
Registration of Births and Deaths Act prescribes the provisions for
correction of entry of birth or death in the register, appearing
erroneous to the satisfaction of the Registrar, either to correct it or to
cancel it. Section 15 reads as follows:
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
“15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of
births and deaths.-If it is proved to the satisfaction of the
Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept
by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has
been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such
rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to
the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such
entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel
the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration
of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add
thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.”
Therefore, it is only the Registrar who is authorized to correct any
entry made in the register of births and deaths upon his satisfaction
and no one else.
10. The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act or the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyum attach the presumption of correctness and
genuineness of the public documents.
11. In Uli Bewa vrs. Mana Bewa, I.L.R. 1963 Cuttack 451, this
Court has held that Death Register by Municipality comes within the
definition of a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act
and the entries therein could be proved by production of certified
copies under Section 77 of the Evidence Act. The document is
therefore by itself a piece of evidence admissible under Section 35 of
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
the Evidence Act. There is a presumption under Section 114 of the
Evidence Act that the entry was properly made by a public servant in
discharge of his official duty and formal proof of the fact that a
particular officer made the entry is not necessary.
12. In Gopichand Arya vrs. Smt.Bedamo Kuer, AIR 1966 Patna
231, it is stated that the Death Certificate is the most important
document to prove the date of death since the entry was made by a
public servant in due discharge of his official duty. This being a
public document, presumption of correctness is attached to it and
therefore heavy onus lies on the party who wants to discharge the
onus.
13. In the present case at hand, the Death Certificate at Annexure-2
is left unchallenged as on date and as per the submissions of the
Petitioner, the same has been accepted by the LIC of India as correct,
to release the death benefits in favour of the dependants. Further, said
Death Certificate at Anenxure-2 stands genuine till date as it is, to
presume the correctness in respect of the entries made therein,
particularly regarding the date of death of the deceased. Therefore, no
option lies with the Bank-Opposite Parties to dispute the date of death
to describe the same as erroneous against such entry made in the
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 9 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
Death Certificate. As stated earlier, such power remains with the
Registrar only, to make any correction in respect of any entry in the
Register of Births and Deaths in terms of Section 15 of the Act and no
other authority is authorized to discard the same as unacceptable or to
say as an erroneous entry.
14. In LIC of India vrs. Anuradha (supra), the issue arose before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to payment of life insurance
benefits concerning non-payment of premium from the date of
missing of the insured whose civil death was declared subsequently.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that when an issue arises
as to the date or time of death, the same shall have to be determined
on evidence, direct or circumstantial, and not by assumption or
presumption. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the said decision are reproduced below:
“2. A common question of law centering around Sections
107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 arises for
decision in these two appeals.
xxx xxx xxx
12. Neither Section 108 of the Evidence Act nor logic, reason
or sense permit a presumption or assumption being drawn or
made that the person not heard of for seven years was dead
on the date of his disappearance or soon after the date and
time on which he was last seen. The only inference
permissible to be drawn and based on the presumption is thatW.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 10 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
the man was dead at the time when the question arose subject
to a period of seven years’ absence and being unheard of
having elapsed before that time. The presumption stands
unrebutted for failure of the contesting party to prove that
such man was alive either on the date on which the dispute
arose or at any time before that so as to break the period of
seven years counted backwards from the date on which the
question arose for determination. At what point of time the
person was dead is not a matter of presumption but of
evidence, factual or circumstantial, and the onus of proving
that the death had taken place at any given point of time or
date since the disappearance or within the period of seven
years lies on the person who stakes the claim, the
establishment of which will depend on proof of the date or
time of death.
13. A presumption assists a party in discharging the burden
of proof by taking advantage of presumption arising in his
favour dispensing with the need of adducing evidence which
may or may not be available. Phipson and Elliott have
observed in Manual of the Law of Evidence (11th Edn., at p.
77) that although there is almost invariably a logical
connection between basic fact and presumed fact, in the case
of most presumptions it is by no means intellectually
compelling. In our opinion, a presumption of fact or law,
which has gained recognition in statute or by successive
judicial pronouncements spread over the years, cannot be
stretched beyond the limits permitted by the statute or
beyond the contemplation spelled out from the logic, reason
and sense prevailing with the judges, having written opinions
valued as precedents, so as to draw such other inferences as
are not contemplated.
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 11 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
14. On the basis of the abovesaid authorities, we
unhesitatingly arrive at a conclusion which we sum up in the
following words: the law as to presumption of death remains
the same whether in the common law of England or in the
statutory provisions contained in Sections 107 and 108 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the scheme of the Evidence
Act, though Sections 107 and 108 are drafted as two sections,
in effect, Section 108 is an exception to the rule enacted in
Section 107. The human life shown to be in existence, at a
given point of time which according to Section 107 ought to
be a point within 30 years calculated backwards from the
date when the question arises, is presumed to continue to be
living. The rule is subject to a proviso or exception as
contained in Section 108. If the persons, who would have
naturally and in the ordinary course of human affairs heard of
the person in question, have not so heard of him for seven
years, the presumption raised under Section 107 ceases to
operate. Section 107 has the effect of shifting the burden of
proving that the person is dead on him who affirms the fact.
Section 108, subject to its applicability being attracted, has
the effect of shifting the burden of proof back on the one who
asserts the fact of that person being alive. The presumption
raised under Section 108 is a limited presumption confined
only to presuming the factum of death of the person whose
life or death is in issue. Though it will be presumed that the
person is dead but there is no presumption as to the date or
time of death. There is no presumption as to the facts and
circumstances under which the person may have died. The
presumption as to death by reference to Section 108 would
arise only on lapse of seven years and would not by applying
any logic or reasoning be permitted to be raised on expiry of
6 years and 364 days or at any time short of it. An occasion
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 12 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
for raising the presumption would arise only when the
question is raised in a court, tribunal or before an authority
who is called upon to decide as to whether a person is alive
or dead. So long as the dispute is not raised before any forum
and in any legal proceedings, the occasion for raising the
presumption does not arise.
15. If an issue may arise as to the date or time of death the
same shall have to be determined on evidence, direct or
circumstantial, and not by assumption or presumption. The
burden of proof would lie on the person who makes assertion
of death having taken place at a given date or time in order to
succeed in his claim. Rarely may it be permissible to proceed
on the premise that the death had occurred on any given date
before which the period of seven years’ absence was shown
to have elapsed.
16. We cannot, therefore, countenance the view taken by the
High Court in either of the two appeals that on the expiry of
seven years by the time the issue came to be raised in the
Consumer Forum or civil court and evidence was adduced
that the person was not heard of for a period of seven years
by the wife and/or family members of the person then not
only could the death be presumed but it could also be
assumed that the presumed death had synchronised with the
date when he was reported to be missing or that the date and
time of death could be correlated to the point of time
coinciding with the commencement of calculation of seven
years backwards from the date of initiation of legal
proceedings. In order to successfully maintain the claim for
benefit under the insurance policies, it is necessary for the
policy to have been kept alive by punctual payment of
premiums until the claim was made. The appellant LIC was
justified in turning down the claims by pleading that the
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 13 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
policies had lapsed and all that could be paid to the claimants
was the paid-up value of the policies.”
15. In the instant case at hand, the deceased went missing on 10 th
December 2007, the civil suit for declaration of civil death was filed
on 16th July 2022 and decreed on 27th February 2024. As explained
in the decision of LIC of India vrs. Anuradha (supra), the question
of time of death is a question of facts, to be determined by evidence,
factual or circumstantial and not a presumption. Section 108 of the
Indian Evidence Act reads that, “Burden of proving that person is
alive who has not been heard of seven years – provided that when
the question is whether a man is alive or dead and it is proved that
he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would
naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of
proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it.”
Thus, after declaration of civil death by decree of the Civil Court,
the statutory competent authority, i.e. the Registrar of Births and
Deaths, has issued the Death Certificate under Annexure-2
mentioning the date of death on 10th December 2007.
16. As stated earlier, the Death Certificate issued under
Annexure-2 is undisputedly a public document. The Hon’ble
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 14 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi vrs. Anand Purohit, AIR
1988 (SC) 1796, have held at para-3(a) that;
“3 (a) To render a document admissible under Section 35 of
the Evidence Act, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly,
entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official
book, register or record, secondly, it must be an entry stating
a fact in issue or relevant fact; and thirdly, it must be made
by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any
other person in performance of a duly specially enjoined by
law.”
17. Here, the Death Certificate at Annexure-2, issued as per the
statutory provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act
and Rules made thereof, is an unchallenged and unquestioned
document and therefore, the entries made therein are duly proved on
production of certified copy of the same. Such entries made in the
Death Certificate are binding on all such persons and authorities.
So, the Bank-Opposite Parties are prohibited to dispute such entries
made in the Death Certificate without having jurisdiction in that
respect. It is not that the Bank-Opposite Parties are producing any
material evidence to deny the date of death mentioned in the Death
Certificate, but simply denies to accept such date of death. This is
impermissible on the part of the Bank Authority. It is stated here
that such entries made in the Death Certificate under Annexure-2 in
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Date: 06-Aug-2026 17:14:07
terms of the statutory provisions relating to it, is binding on the
Bank Authority.
18. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 15th October 2025 under Annexure-5 along
with the attachments is set aside. Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 are
directed to release the claim of settlement of late Rabindra Nath
Behera in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two months from
today, if no other legal impediment is there.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal, A.R.-cum-Sr.Seretary
W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2026 Page 16 of 16
