To my mind, it is not necessary to refer to the judgments as
the Honourable Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Births and
Deaths Registers maintained by the statutory authority raise a
presumption of correctness. Such entries are admissible in evidence in
terms of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Mr.Kumbhakoni has
laid emphasis on the aspect that these entries may be relevant, but this
will have to be proved and his reliance on the judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court particularly in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi
v/s Anand Purohit reported in AIR 1988 SC 1796 is of no assistance. The
Honourable Supreme Court says in clearest terms that these registers are
maintained by the statutory authorities and entries therein raise a
presumption of correctness. The entries are admissible in evidence. In the
present case, once they were read in evidence that itself means that
before they are so read and relied upon, due opportunity was given to the
parties to controvert the same. In other words, when such entries are
relied upon by summoning public officials and when they depose about
the same, their version is not accepted straightaway, but opportunity is
given to the Opponent to cross examine the said officials. Once this
procedure is adopted and complied with, then, entries which raise
presumption of correctness and are made in the statutory registers
become admissible in evidence. Mr.Kumbhakoni does not dispute that this
procedure has been complied with completely in this case. If that is so,
then, the learned Judge committed no error in taking them into
consideration and rendering the ultimate finding.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10313 OF 2011
Arif Ibrahim Choudhari,Vs Sau.Vahida Ayyaz Nayakwadi,
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Pronounced on : 14th December, 2012.
Print Page
