State of Haryana and Another vs Pushpa Rani

K.C. Puri, J.—Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree dated 13.9.2011 passed by Sh. K.C. Sharma, District Judge, Panipat, vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2011 passed by Sh. Sanjay Khanduja, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, was dismissed. Briefly stated, Pushpa Rani filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction that she was born on 12.1.1984 at Village Mohiyudeenpur Thirana and the entry regarding the same was got recorded by her parents with defendant No. 2 Additional District Registrar, Birth-Death - cum - District Health Officer, Panipat but inadvertently her date of birth was recorded as 16.12.1984 instead of 12.1.1984. Her husband has been residing in United States of America and she wanted to visit her husband at United States of America but the visa authorities demanded her birth certificate which was issued by defendant No. 2 on 11.10.2010 and she came to know that her date of birth has been wrongly mentioned as 16.12.1984. She approached defendant No. 2 and requested to correct her date of birth, but defendant No. 2 refused to do the same. Hence the suit.

Upon notice, defendant No. 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi etc. On merits, it has been submitted that Birth and Death registration record is a legal record and certificates are issued from these records u/s 17 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969. Birth certificates are true extracts of the register and such certificates issued by the Registrar are certified u/s 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the Registration Birth and Death Act, there is no provision to change the particulars and Registrar can only issue the extract from the register. Hence there is no procedure to change the date of birth.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

Relief.

In order to prove her case, plaintiff examined PW-1 Smt. Bharpai w/o Arjun PW-2 Siri Pal s/o Lal Chand, PW-3 Lehna Singh s/o Jhandu Ram and plaintiff herself appeared as PW-4 and produced the documentary evidence.

In rebuttal, defendants examined DW-1 Dr. Ashwani Kumar Garg, Deputy Civil Surgeon (Health), Panipat.

Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on the file, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 15.2.2011 passed by Sh. Sanjay Khanduja, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, the defendants preferred the Ist appeal. The said appeal was heard by Sh. K.C. Sharma, District Judge, Panipat and vide judgment dated 13.9.2011, the said appeal was dismissed.

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2011 passed by Sh. Sanjay Khanduja, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat and judgment and decree dated 13.9.2011 passed by Sh. K.C. Sharma, District Judge, Panipat, the defendant-appellants have preferred the present regular second appeal.

The appellants in paragraph No. 8 of the grounds of appeal have mentioned that following substantial questions of law have arisen in the present appeal:

i) Whether the date of birth entered in the record of the appellant can be changed or rectify asking?

ii) Whether the civil court is competent to give a direction to the Registrar/appellant to make changes in the Register of Birth and Death without any basis?

iii) Whether the civil court can direct the appellant to change the date of birth in the Register of the appellant simply to make it in consonance with the date of birth entered in the school certificate and the passport?

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that entry in the Death and Birth Register was made in the year 1984 and the same cannot be ordered to be rectified. The Civil Court cannot give any direction. It is further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the authority reported as Resham Singh vs. Union of India and another 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 131, has held that where there is a conflict between date of birth recorded in birth certificate issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths and entry of birth in school leaving certificate, in that case entry in birth certificate would prevail.

I have considered the said submission. The ratio of authority in Resham Singh''s case (Supra), is not helpful to the case of appellants. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that date of birth of the plaintiff is 12.1.1984 and the date 16.12.1984 has been inadvertently mentioned in the Death and Birth Register. That being a finding of fact cannot be interfered. In the present case, the plaintiff is claiming that her date of birth is 12.1.1984 instead of 16.12.1984. So, she is claiming herself elder in comparison to the entry made in the Register. The reasoning given by her is that she wanted to join her husband in United States of America. The date of birth has been recorded as 12.1.1984 in the school register and all other documents place on the file. Admittedly, plaintiff-respondent is not a government servant and she does not want any benefit from the government and simply wanted to correct the record in respect of her date of birth in the register maintained by Registrar of Births and Deaths. There may be cases that in order to prolong more years of service, an employee may seek correction in respect of his/her date of birth to get more years for serving in the government department. In the present case, the plaintiff shall not be benefited in any manner, rather she would be loser in case she joins the government job. It is a matter of common knowledge that passport authorities seek birth certificate and in case the birth certificate is not in consonance with other record, they may refuse to issue the passport. The voluminous evidence produce on the record shows that date of birth of the plaintiff is 12.1.1984. In my view, the State should not have contested the claim of the plaintiff, more so, when she is not seeking any relief from the government in respect of change of date of birth.

So, far as authority in Resham Singh''s case (Supra), is concerned, there is no doubt to the preposition of law laid down in the said ruling. The ratio of the said judgment is that if there is a conflict between date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate and date of birth recorded in the register of Registrar of Births and Death, in that case, the later would prevail. There is no such dispute in the present case. In the present case, the plea taken by the plaintiff is that inadvertently, the date of birth has been wrongly recorded as 16.12.1984 instead of 12.1.1984.

So, in these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present case. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.