GOPINATH Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the court below seeking a declaration that his correct date of birth was 29.06.1954 and not 14.03.1953 It was the plaintiffs case that the plaintiffs father, at the time of admitting him to school, had by mistake given the wrong date of birth and this had continued in the school records. He passed out of school and ultimately became a Chartered Accountant. The S.S.L.C. certificate indicated that his date of birth was 14.03.1953 and all the records pertaining to the plaintiff were also with reference to the same. It is claimed by the plaintiff that when he visited his maternal uncle in September 2010, it is claimed that his uncle had for the first time disclosed that the appellant was born on 29.06.1954 and that there was a serious mistake committed insofar as his date of birth is concerned. It is that which according to the plaintiff is the cause of action and he had caused notice to Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 calling upon them to change his date of birth Since that was not complied with, a suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 4 were set ex -parte and the fifth defendant appeared though counsel but did not choose to file any written statement. Defendants 2 and 3 had filed written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings, the court below framed the following issues for consideration:

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant seeks to point out that the appellant upon learning of his actual date of birth, had obtained a certified copy of the entry made in the Register of Births before the competent authority and that has been produced before the court below, which has been overlooked and further, that there was no fraud intended, as is evident from the fact that the entry made in the Register of Births, has come from an independent authority, which could not have been negated by the court below. Hence, the court below merely proceeding on a technicality that no notice under Section 80 of the CPC had been issued preceding the suit is also not tenable, as the notice issued to defendants was produced and marked as Exhibit P4, which has conveniently been overlooked Moreover, the appellant being well -placed in life, hardly intends to seek any undue benefit by virtue of the correction of his date of birth and it is only on a matter of principle that his actual date of birth is not on record, that he has sought to file the suit. The learned counsel has also placed on record the affidavit evidence tendered by the plaintiff and the documents filed in support of his case. Among the documents that have been furnished, one curious feature is though there is a certificate of birth in Form No. 9 issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, marked as Exhibit P3 dated 16.07.1976, a certificate marked as Exhibit P2 is issued by the very same authority under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 dated 26.07.2011 which would indicate that there are no records pertaining to the said entry as regards the date of birth of the appellant and that it was not registered. Therefore, the very documents produced by the plaintiff do appear to be doubtful as one cancels out the other. In any event, notwithstanding that the court below has dismissed the suit on certain issues, the appellant has still not made out a case for interference by this court, as it is also to be noticed that the appellant being a trained professional who is not accepted to have ignored his true and correct date of birth over the years and the same having been brought to his knowledge by his uncle in the year 2010 and he then having carried out an investigation and thereafter seeking correction of the date of birth when he was aged 57, would hardly merit consideration. Notwithstanding the principle on which any such suit is filed, the reason assigned for the delay in filing the same cannot be accepted and given the circumstances that it would require alteration of certificate such as the S.S.L.C. certificate at a remote point of time on the plaintiffs claim if the declaration is to be granted in favour of the plaintiff, is a more primary reason on which the suit ought to be dismissed. Therefore, apart from the reasons assigned by the trial court, the plaintiff -appellant has not made out a case and hence, the appeal is rejected.