PURNAMASI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is claiming correction of his date of birth on the basis of a horoscope.

(2.) There is no provision under law so as to raise a conclusive foregone presumption in favour of the petitioner in respect of the date of birth as indicated in the horoscope. For this the petitioner will have to lead evidence in a suit to be filed before the court of competent civil jurisdiction. The petitioner is educationally qualified and was working as a Collection Amin. He has passed his matriculation in 1969 where his date of birth recorded is 31.1.1950. The date of birth as reflected in the horoscope is 31.12.1952.

(3.) In a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Sharma, 2002 7 SCC 719, has rejected such a contention founded on a horoscope as against a matriculation certificate.