STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHIVANAND FAKIRAPPA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Karnataka is before me challenging the concurrence findings of the 3rd Additional Munsiff, belgaum in O. S. No. 153/1992 and confirmed in R. A. No. 163/1991 by the III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Belgaum.

(2.) RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF filed a suit in O. S. No. 153/1992 seeking for declaratory relief with regard to his date of birth being 10-9-1945. He also sought for a direction to correct the entry of his date of birth in S. S. C. Certificate and marks statement. In the plaint, the plaintiff states that he was born on 10th September 1945 at Kasarkop Village in Sampgaon Taluk of Belgaum District. Horoscope was prepared. Horoscope shows his date of birth as 10-9-1945. Tahsildar, bailhongal entered the name of the plaintiff in the birth and death register maintained in the office as 10-9-1945. He was admitted in the Primary School, Hosur, Shahapur, belgaum. The register maintained by the primary School also shows that the petitioners date of birth as 10-9-1945. He studied up to 7th standard in the primary school, hosur. Thereafter, he joined the Karnataka shikshan Samitl Kannada Training College in Belgaum and completed the course in the year 1958. He joined the Government service in the year 1962. In the service register also it was shown as 10-9-1945.

(3.) HE appeared as an external candidate for the S. S. C. examination in the year 1959-60 at M. J. High School, Bailhongal. While appearing as an external candidate, his date of birth was shown as 10-9-1945 in the school Leaving Certificate. However, while issuing the marks statement of S. S. C. examination, the date of birth was not correctly mentioned. He sought for mentioning of the same in the marks card. He issued a written notice. He submitted necessary details. Even then, it was not done. In those circumstances, he filed a suit. The defendants entered their appearance through their counsel. They stated that the suit was not maintainable. One witness was examined in addition to filing 19 documents. Nobody was examined on behalf of the defendant. The trial Judge passed the following order :