M RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DINDIGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.129 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Palani is the appellant in the above second appeal. He filed the suit for declaration declaring that his correct date of birth was 11.1.1948, he belongs to THEeya Community and in consequence, a direction to the defendants to make suitable corrections in the S.S.L.C. Book.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint are as follows: THE plaintiff is the permanent resident of Agraharam, A.Kaliamputhur, Palani Taluk. His father died while he was young and he was brought up by his mother Vellaiammal, who is an illiterate. THE plaintiff was born on 11.1.1948 in the headquarters hospital at Coimbatore. His date of birth was reported by the Medical Officer of the hospital and the same was registered in the Coimbatore Municipality. THE plaintiff belongs to THEeya Community. But it is generally mentioned as Hindu in the birth extract maintained in the Municipality at Coimbatore. THE plaintiff was admitted in the Panchayat Elementary School in the Agraharam of A.Kalaiamputhur and at the time of his admission his mother being an illiterate woman furnished the date of birth to the school authorities as 7.6.1946 instead of 11.1.1948. Since she was working in a mill from 7.00 am to 7.00 p.m. she requested one peon to admit the plaintiff in the school. THE mother signed the S.S.L.C. book declaration also without noting the wrong date of birth mentioned therein. In the S.S.L.C. book also the caste has been noted as Nayar instead of THEeya Community. This mistake also occurred because of the ignorance of the mother. After getting copy of the birth extract the plaintiff came to know that his date of birth has been wrongly noted and that his community also has been wrongly noted as Nayar instead of THEeya Community. After knowing this mistake he has been repeatedly writing to the Education Department for the correction of his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. Book. But no favourable reply was given by the Education Department. Ultimately, the plaintiff issued notice on 20.3.1978 to the defendants. THE Director of School Education sent a reply stating that the request of the plaintiff cannot be entertained. THE District Collector also sent a reply that the notice issued by the plaintiff was recorded. Under the law and equity, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his correct date of birth and community. THE abovesaid declaration will not prejudice the defendants in any way. Hence the present suit.

(3.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.141 of 1980 before the Sub-Court, Dindigul After framing necessary points for determination, in view of the inordinate delay of 15 years in approaching the court, the lower appellate court rejected the claim of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.