1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT MUNSIF AT ALANDUR
Present: Selvi.K. Malarkodi., B.A.B.L.,
Principal District Munsif,
Alandur.
Monday, this the 18th day of February.2019
O. S.No.269/2018
Jaya Premalatha ...Plaintiff
.Vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer
2. The Tahsildar,
Sholinganallur Taluk,
3. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District. …Defendants
This suit came up on 8.2.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of
M/s.M.Prakash Kumar, S.Baskar and S. Sathya Narayanan, advocates for the plaintiff
and of Thiru. M.Manimaran, Government Pleader, advocate for the defendants and
upon perusing records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, upon perusal of
written arguments filed by learned counsel for plaintiff and having stood over for
consideration till this date, this court made the following:
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed against the defendants a) to direct the 1 st defendant to declare
that the plaintiff’s husband R. Jayachandran, s/o. Raghavan as civil dead on 5.1.2011;
and b) for a mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to issue a death
certificate of the plaintiff’s husband R. Jayachandran, s/o.Raghavan; and for other
orders.
2
(2). PLEADINGS
(A) The averments of the plaint in short are as follows:
The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was married to R. Jayachandran
on 9.9.1992. After marriage, the plaintiff and her husband has been peacefully living
at Kollam, Thoothukudi, Mumbai and lastly resided at No.1/23, Bharathiyar First
Cross Street, Moovarasampattu, Madipakkam, Chennai-91. Due to wedlock with
R. Jayachandran, they have two daughters Ms. J.Jayanthi and Ms.J. Bhavana. The
husband R.Jayachandran was working as Senior Manager, Vijaya Bank, Regional
Office, Egmore, Chennai. On 19.11.2010, the plaintiff's husband underwent blood
clot removal surgery (brain surgery) at M/s. Hindu Mission Hospital, Nanganallur
and after surgery, the plaintiff's husband was not in stable mind. Her elder daughter
Ms.J.Jayanthi was studying Higher Secondary (+2) at M/s.Vedha Vikas Higher
Secondary School, Salem from 2008 to 2012. On 27.12.2010, her husband
R.Jayachandran left to Salem to visit his elder daughter and after visiting their elder
daughter, the plaintiff's husband left to Chennai but does not reach home. The
plaintiff and her relatives searched him in several places, but they were unable to
trace him. Hence, on 5.1.2011, the plaintiff lodged a police complaint to the Inspector
of Police, Madipakkam P.S. stating that her husband is missing in Cr.No.22/2011 as
'man missing'. Nearly 7 years have gone and the plaintiff was unable to find out her
husband and is where about. The plaintiff's husband has served 36 years in Vijaya
Bank and at last i.e. on 27.12.2010 he worked as Senior Manager,M/s.Vijaya Bank,
Regional Office, Egmore. Seven years has been passed away from the date of
plaintiff's husband missing. The plaintiff's husband's family pension is not paid to the
3
plaintiff and her daughters. When the plaintiff enquired with M/s.Vijaya Bank,
Regional office regarding settlement of his husband's Provident Fund benefits, they
advised her to get suitable orders from Civil Court enabling them to proceed further.
On 2.10.2018, the plaintiff made representation to the 2nd defendant through
registered post on 6.1.2018 which was received by 2nd defendant on 8.1.2018. The
plaintiff has downloaded the delivery report of the registered post from the Postal
Department website. In the above said circumstances, the present suit is filed.
(B). The averments of the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant in
short are as follows:
The 2nd defendant has filed written statement for himself and on behalf of 1st
and 3rd defendants. The plaintiff approached them for obtaining death certificate and
they have also obtained the fir certificate of the deceased and the plaintiff is the wife
of the deceased. At the time of enquiry, the defendant has found that
Thiru.R.Jayachandran missed on 5.1.2011. The defendants could not trace the details
of the deceased. The plaintiff has not filed sufficient documents. If the plaintiff is
aggrieved by the order of this defendant, might have appealed the matter to the
appellate authority, before seeking remedy from this court. There is no cause of
action for the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3. Based on the above of pleadings following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed
for?
3. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to? ?
4
4. Evidence on Record:
In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1
and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On the side of defendants no witnesses were
examined and no documents were marked. Written arguments filed by plaintiff's side.
5. Materials perused.
6. Issue Nos.1 and 2:
Admittedly, the plaintiff is the wife of R. Jayachandran and Ms.J.Jayanthi and
Ms. J.Bhavana are their children. According to the plaintiff, the said Jayachandran
worked as Senior Manager in M/s.Vijaya Bank, Egmore, Chennai. The said
Jayachandran was missing from 27.12.2010 and his whereabouts were not known to
the plaintiff after due search. The plaintiff lodged a police complaint before the
Madipakkam Police Station and F.I.R. in Crime No.22/11 was registered on 5.1.2011.
7. Due to the missing of R. Jayachandran; the family pension is not paid to the
plaintiff and her daughters. Hence the suit. The plaintiff testified herself as PW1 and
exhibited Ex.A1 Marriage invitation card ; Ex.A2 Photograph -1 No along with CD;
Ex.A3 Xerox copy of family ration card; Ex.A4 Copy of the letter given by plaintiff
to the 1st defendant ; Ex.A5 Delivery report of registered post from postal
Department wedbsite; and Ex.A6 Xerox copy of First Information Report in support of
her case.
8. On the other hand, the defendants contended that the plaintiff approached
them for obtaining death certificate and they have also obtained the F.I.R. certificate
of the deceased and the plaintiff is the wife of the deceased. At the time of
enquiry, the defendant has found that Thiru.R.Jayachandran missed on 5.1.2011.
5
The defendants could not trace the details of the deceased. The plaintiff has not filed
sufficient documents. If the plaintiff is aggrieved by the order of this defendant,
might have appealed the matter to the appellate authority, before seeking remedy
from this court. There is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
9. Now, the question arises that whether date of missing can be fixed as a date
of death. The burden to prove the case is on the plaintiff. On perusal of records, it
reveals that the plaintiff's husband had been missing from 27.12.2010 and police
complaint also lodged. The relief sought for in the suit is to declare that the plaintiff's
husband is died as Civil death. In the plaint, it is pleaded that the R.Jayachandran
worked as Senior Manager in the Vijaya Bank. No documentary evidence produced
before this court relating to the R.Jayachandran who worked as a Senior Manager for
past 36 years. Further, there is no explanation by plaintiff whether they have directly
approached the defendants for issuance of death certificate before the authority and
the same was refused by the concerned authority. The defendants strongly opposed
that the plaintiff did not approach the defendants to get the death certificate instead
they have directly came to this court. The plaintiff should have submitted the petition
along with necessary documents and statements of neighbours to the revenue
Department or to these defendants. But, the plaintiff did not follow the mandatory
rules and procedures. Thus, this court is of the opinion that, the plaintiff is bound to
prove the case to the satisfaction of the court. In the absence of the documentary
evidence to prove the civil death of the said K. Jayachandran, the plaintiff is not
entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for and accordingly, issue nos.1 and 2
6
are answered as against the plaintiff.
10. Issue No.3
A specific finding is given in the Issue nos.1 and 2, this issue does not have any
necessity to consider.
In the result, the suit is dismissed and no orders as to costs.
Dictated directly to the steno-typist, directly typed by her in the Computer,
corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 18th day of February.2019.
sd/-K.Malarkodi
Principal District Munsif,
Alandur.
List of exhibits marked on plaintiff's side:
1. Ex.A1 – 9.9.1992 – Marriage invitation card (original)
2. Ex.A2 – .. – Photograph -1 No along with CD
3. Ex.A3 – .. - Xerox copy of family ration card
4. Ex.A4 –2.1.2018 – Copy of the letter given by plaintiff to the 1st defendant
5. Ex.A5 - .. – Delivery report of the registered post from the Postal Department
website (original)
6. Ex.A6 - 5.1.2011 – Xerox copy of First Information Report
List of exhibits marked on defendants' side: Nil
List of witnesses examined on plaintiff’s side:
1. PW1 –Tmt. Jaya Premalatha
List of witnesses examined on defendant's side: Nil
sd/-K.Malarkodi
Principal District Munsif,
Alandur.
