S SRINIVASAN Vs. SUB REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the Fair and Decretal order dated 4.10.2002 made in unnumbered O.S.No. of 2002 by the Court of District Munsif, Hosur thereby rejecting the plaint filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he has filed a suit for declaration (i) that he was born on 25.10.1947 at 7.30 a.m. at Kelamangalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District and (ii) consequently direct the defendants to enter the date of birth of the plaintiff as 25.10.1947 instead of 25.10.1944 in the records maintained in the office of the defendants and confer all consequential benefits on the plaintiff on the averments that he was actually born on 25.10.1947 at Kelamangalam, Denkanikottai Taluk at about 7.30 a.m.; that his date of birth was not entered by his parents in the Birth Register maintained in the office of the first defendant due to the reasons known to them; that the plaintiff joined the service as Village Karnam, a hereditary office, at Kelamangalam on 1.11.1972 and he was in that post till 14.11.1980 the date of abolition of such posts throughout the State; that subsequently on the basis of the Government Order he was selected for the post of Village Administrative Officer and appointed.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that he joined the service on 22.7.1989; that at the time of his joining service, he gave his date of birth as 25.10.1944 at Kelamangalam as there was no record to show his real date of birth at that time; that subsequently he got a very old horoscope which was 30 years old and marked the same as an exhibit; that apart, the plaintiff also applied for the copy of the birth extract from the office of the first defendant vide his application dated 28.1.2000 and the same was returned as not traceable on 28.1.2000; that on the basis of the wrong date of birth, the plaintiff is likely to retire from service and the request for the correction of date of birth was rejected by the second defendant on the basis of the order of the PCCA for want of school or any other certificate; that he challenged the orders of the second defendant before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and the orders of the PCCA Chennai on the basis of which the second defendant had passed an order which was not served on the plaintiff. On such averments plaintiff would pray for the relief extracted supra.