Sarala vs The Director of School Education

Abdul Hadi, J.—Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered on 23.12.1994 in this second appeal, I have heard learned Counsel for the

plaintiff-appellant as well as learned counsel for the defendant - respondent. The plaintiff has failed in both the Courts below.

The suit is for declaring the correct date of birth of the plaintiff as 13.11.1937 in her S.S.L.C. Book and for a mandatory injunction, directing the

defendant to effect change of plaintiff''s date of birth as 13.11.1937 instead of 26.4.1937.

The suit has been concurrently dismissed by both the Courts below. Though learned counsel for the appellant argues that pursuant to Ex.A.3,

the horoscope of the plaintiff, Ex.A.1, the Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal authority relating to the plaintiff, the relevant government Orders

and the oral evidence, the Courts below ought to have decreed the suit as prayed for, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the suit itself

is not maintainable u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act since the employer of the plaintiff, viz., Meenakshi College, in which the plaintiff is a lecturer,

has not been impleaded in the suit and there is no cause of action against the defendant-Director of School Education, the plaintiff having left the

school about 37 years back. Learned Counsel for the respondent also submits that the suit is also barred by limitation under Article 58 of the

Limitation Act, since, though the plaint states that on 3.1.1990 the plaintiff consulted an astrologer about her future as per her horoscope and that

then only she discovered the defect in her date of birth in her S.S.L.C. Book, even P.W.1, the plaintiff (the sole witness on the side of the plaintiff)

did not depose that she discovered the alleged defect only on 3.1.1990 and in fact she did not refer to any date at all in this connection but only

said "" (sic)

In view of the abovesaid contention taken by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non- impleading the proper

person I have to first consider the said aspect.

First paragraph of Section 34 of the new Specific Relief Act (corresponding to Section 42 of the old Act) runs as follows:-

Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right. Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may

institute a suit against any person denying, or intended to deny, his title in such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a

declaration that he is so entitled and that the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief.

The convention of learned Counsel for the respondent is that the defendant-respondent is not such a person ""denying or intended to deny"". In this

connection, he relies on the decision in D. Arul Raj v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Anr. of l993 (1) LW 645 and the

judgments of this court is S.A.No. 108 of 1959 relied on therein. The following passage in 1993 (1) L.W 645 (supra) is relied on by his:-

Jagadeesan, J., in Second Appeal No. 108 of 1958 held that the plaintiff in the suit was not entitled to a declaration u/s 42 of the Specific Relief

Act and the Plaintiff had no cause of action at all against the Director of Public Instruction. That was a case where the plaintiff was serving in the

Corporation of Madras was made a party in the Second Appeal for the first time........In the view that the Director of Public Instruction was not in

any way interested in denying the correct date of birth, the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration u/s 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit was

dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff there asked for a declaration of his correct date of birth as against the Director of Public Instruction who

was absolutely unconcerned and disinterested in the matter and that the plaintiff had no cause of action at all against the Director of Public

Instruction.

Learned Counsel for the respondent also points out that in the written statement itself, the defendant has raised the plea that the suit is bad for

non-joinder of necessary party, viz., the employer of the plaintiff. Yet the plaintiff did not choose to implead the said employer.

I see great force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the suit, particularly into the light of D.

Arul Raj v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service commission and Anr. 1993 1 LW 645 and the unreported judgment is S.A.No. 108 of 1958. I have

also held similar view in my own judgment dated 21.9.1994 in a similar second appeal, viz., S.A.No. 399 of 1994, which is also relied on by

learned Counsel for the respondent. There too, after referring to 1993 (1) LW 645 (supra) and the above referred to old Section 42 and the

present Section 34 (which is almost same as old Section 42), I observed as follows:-

and the present Section 34 (which is almost same as old Section 42), I observed as follows: -

So, such a declaration suit can be filed against any person denying or interested to deny plaintiff''s title. In that context only, this court held in the

above referred S.A.No. 108 of 1958 as stated in 1993 (1) LW 645 (supra)

which also impliedly approved the said decision in the said second appeal. So, the present declaration suit, which also has been filed under the

abovesaid Section 34 is not strictly maintainable against the present defendant, viz., the Director of School Education since long back the plaintiff

had left the school in 1968 itself and the defendant herein cannot be said to be in any way interested in denying the alleged correct date of birth of

plaintiff on the date when the suit has been filed in 1982. Now, the person who may be interested in denying the said date of birth is plaintiff''s

employer. But, the said employer has not been impleaded.

No doubt, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the correction of the entry in the S.S.L.C. book can only be done by the respondent

and so there is cause of action by the respondent. But, I am unable to accept this submission. Long after the plaintiff has left the school, the

respondent is totally unconcerned and disinterested in the matter and it cannot be said that when the suit is filed, there is cause of action against the

Director of School Education (defendant). Learned Counsel for the appellant also sought to distinguish one fact in the above S.A.No. 399 of 1994

with the present one, by saying that while in that case, there was no reply from the Director of School Education to the suit notice, denying the

claim made by the plaintiff therein, in the present case, the claim of the plaintiff is denied in the reply notice Ex.A-8. But the said denial can not be

said to be actual with the reference to the actual date of birth of the plaintiff. Even the trial Court, in its judgment, states that under the above said

Ex.A.8. the defendant replied stating that since already she had written the examination of school final, there cannot be thereafter, any alteration in

the S.S.L.C. book regarding her date of birth. So, all that is stated in Ex.A.8 appears to be that the alteration sought for in the S.S.L.C. book

cannot be done after such a long time.

So, it cannot be said that there is denial in the present case, satisfying the relevant expression used in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

Further, I must also point out that Director of Public Instruction v. Mohandas 1955 I M.L.J 488 DB has strictly no application to the present

case since that case arose u/s 45 of the Old Act, viz., Specific Relief Act, 1877, which was somewhat similar to the remedy provided under Article

226 of the constitution of India and after coming into force of the constitution, the legislature had omitted the said provision contained u/s 45 in the

new Act, viz., the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The net result is, I have to hold that the suit itself is not maintainable against the defendant.

In the view thus I have taken regarding the maintainability of the suit, there is no necessity to go into the question of limitation or the arguments

relating to merits of the case. Hence, the second appeal is not admitted, but dismissed. No costs.

C.M.P.Nos. 2183 and 3349 of 1995 are also dismissed since I have held that the suit, out of which the second appeal has arisen, itself is not

maintainable against the defendant. No cost.