STATE Vs. VEERANAGOUDA MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal. The State of Karnataka has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1982 passed by Civil Judge, Gadag in Regular Civil Appeal No. 91 / 83, reversing the trial Court judgment and decree dated 28-11-1983 passed by the Munsiff Ron in O.S. 7/83, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff-respondent's suit and the Appellate Court after having reversed the trial Court decree, decreed the plaintiff claim for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was born on 28-11-1952 and not on 1st of June 1949.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are:- That the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that the allegations to the effect that he was born on 28-11-1952 at Abbigeri Taluk, Ron. His parents and members of his family at the time of his birth were uneducated. His father was agriculturist and as such on account of their being uneducated nobody intimated the date of birth of the plaintiff to the concerned authority and so it was not mentioned in the concerned record. The plaintiff has further averred that he had been admitted to the Primary School when he was attained the age for being put in the school and that he was got admitted in the school by his grand-mother. That his grand-mother reported the date of birth of the plaintiff-respondent to be 1-6-1949. The plaintiff's case is that subsequently on 2-8-1982 he found his horoscope in some old records of his family in which his date of birth is mentioned as 28-11-1952 and then it came to his knowledge and notice that his date of birth has wrongly been reported by his grand-mother as 1-6-1949 to the school authorities.

(3.) The plaintiff has however stated that when he got his horoscope he made enquiries from the Tahsildar's office about the entry of his birth in the Tahsil registers of birth and death and he was informed that there is no entry of his birth in the village records of 1949 to 1952. Plaintiff further averred in the plaint that he issued notice to the defendant on 14-10-1982 to get his date of birth corrected and declared as 28-11-1952 instead of 1949. That28-11-1952 is claimed by plaintiffs to be his birth date though it is mentioned in the plaint as 28-11-1982 vide paragraph 3 thereof to be his date of birth which appears to be typographical mistake, as the plaintiff has sought declaration that 'plaintiff's date of birth is 28-11-1952. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant denied the plaint allegations and further averred that the said allegations are false and incorrect. The defendant-appellant has asserted that the plaintiff-respondent's date of birth has been 1-6-1949 and not 28-11-1952. The defendant-appellant stated that date of birth of the plaintiff has been recorded in the school register as 1-6-1949 and that is the correct date of birth. The defendant case is that the alleged horoscope has been a concocted document and has been got prepared for ulterior motives and purpose and is in-admissible in evidence to prove the date of birth. Defendant denied that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the suit. The defendant further stated the plaintiff was not born in Abbigeri Taluk and as such defendant contended the plaintiff suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. The trial Court framed the following issues :-