K.M. Channamallikarjuna vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The respondents having been served remain unrepresented. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice.

Heard the Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court, who had filed a suit for declaration that his date of birth was 14.9.1965 and not 14.9.1964 and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make correction of his date of birth in all the records maintained by them.

It was the plaintiffs case that his father was a school teacher and he had served at various places in Chitradurga District and after his retirement had settled at Bangalore with his family. The plaintiff was the youngest of the four sons and four daughters of his father. He was born at Davanagere when his father was serving as a teacher in the year 1965. It was the plaintiffs case that he had in retrospect learnt that his date of birth was written as 14.9.1964 instead of 14.9.1965. It was the claim of the plaintiff that in the month of November 2005 he had accidentally come across a horoscope written on 18.9.1965 by one Professor H.M. Shivananda Swamy Shastry, Astro Palmist of Davanagere and it was thereafter he realized that he must have born on 14.9.1965 and not on 14.9.1964. And on further search, he was able to search an extract of certificate of birth indicating the actual date of birth as 14.9.1965. It is on that basis that the plaintiff had approached the court below. The defendants, it appears, had entered appearance and had contended that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the date of birth has been recorded in the school records on the information furnished by the parents of the plaintiff and there was no reason to disbelieve or to doubt the same. Hence, there was no error committed by the authorities in recording the date of birth and therefore, there was no cause of action to file a suit.

On the basis of the pleadings, the court below has framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that his correct date of birth is 14.9.1965?

Whether plaintiff is entitled for the declaratory relief regarding his date of birth as prayed?

Whether plaintiff is entitled or mandatory injunction against defendants as prayed?"

The trial court has answered all the issues in the negative.

It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant while taking this court through the record, would demonstrate that the court below has dismissed the suit on the primary contention that the only document sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff, to demonstrate that his correct date of birth is 14.9.1965, is Exhibit P.1, the birth certificate, which is dated 22.8.1979. Therefore, since the date of registration of birth was not disclosed in the said certificate, the court has disbelieved the veracity and correctness of the said certificate and has accordingly dismissed the suit. The learned Counsel for the appellant therefore would seek to demonstrate that having regard to other incidental documents, such as the date of birth of his several brothers and sisters and the fact that he was last of the children born to his father, would clearly demonstrate that he could not have been born earlier and the certificate of birth which was issued, was the extract of a register maintained by the competent authority and it was possible for the plaintiff to even demonstrate that the date of birth was duly registered by the competent authority at the relevant point of time and the mere fact that a certified copy of the birth certificate was obtained in the year 1979 would not render the correctness of the entry in the register maintained by the competent authorities as being erroneous and hence seeks that the appellant be granted an opportunity of leading further evidence before the court below to establish his case.

It is on these contentions that the appellant was granted time to furnish other contemporaneous documents to demonstrate that he was indeed born in the year 1965 and not in the year 1964. Therefore, the plaintiff has now produced copies of several documents to disclose the date of birth of his sisters and brothers, which would fortify the contention put-forth that he was indeed born in 1965 and not in 1964. Further, though it is correctly noted by the trial court that the date of registration of his birth is not disclosed in the certificate, it is quite possible that the Register itself could have been summoned before the court to ascertain the correctness of the registration of birth, which would have clinched the issue. Therefore, the plaintiff being denied the benefit of his date of birth would result in several disadvantages that he would suffer, including the length of his service.

Therefore, it is essential that there be a finding as to the true and correct date of birth of the plaintiff. Hence, invoking Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of the CPC, the plaintiff ought to be enabled to produce other documents to establish his case such as the register maintained by the competent authorities as regards the entry of his date of birth apart from other contemporaneous documents, such as the details of certificates recording the date of birth of his sisters and brothers, which would fortify his case.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellant-plaintiff is directed to tender further evidence before the trial court in support of his case, which the court below shall consider afresh and proceed to pass the judgment in accordance with law. As a matter of form, the judgment and decree in appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded in terms as above.