STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. Vs. INDUPALI BABAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the appellate judgment of our learned brother Patra, J. in Second Appeal No. 388 of 1967 disposed of on 2 -8 -1968.

(2.) THE Respondent who was a minor at the date of the suit sued through his father for a declaration that the date of birth of his was 12 -8 -1950 and not 10 -1.1952 as entered in the records of the Defendants. He wanted a mandatory injunction against the Defendants for correcting the record by incorporation of the correct date of birth in the registers and certificates. The suit was filed on 16 -1 -1967. It was pleaded that when the Plaintiff was admitted into class VII of the Maharaja Boys ' High School, Parlakimedi, by mistake his date of birth was entered as 10 -1 -1952 in the admission register of that school (ext. H). The Plaintiff got promoted to the matriculation class in due course and submitted his application for admission to the High School Certificate Examination of the year 1965 (Ext. A) on 27 -12 -1964. Therein he mentioned his date of birth as 10 -1 -1952. On 1 -5 -1965, the father guardian of the Plaintiff applied (Ex. B) to the Inspector of Schools, Ganjam for correction of the record so far as the date of birth was concerned. He enclosed an affidavit sworn by him in support of that fact and a copy of the horoscope of the Plaintiff as also a certificate of the Civil Surgeon regarding the probable age of The Plaintiff were also submitted. The Inspector forwarded these documents under his letter (Ext. 3) dated 4.5 -1965 to the Secretary, Board of Education (Defendant No. 2). The forwarding letter of the Inspector contained a statement that the Plaintiff 's claim appeared to be valid. The Board rejected the request and intimation was sent under Ext. 6 dated 13 -9 -1965 to the Inspector of Schools about the decision. Ext. J is the proceeding of the meeting of the examination Committee of the Board on the basis whereof the application for correction of the age was rejected.

(3.) FIVE issues were raised at the trial. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence on record came to a clear conclusion that the Plaintiff 's Actual date of birth was 12 -8 -1950 and not 10 -1 -1952. This occasion of the trial Court was based upon both documentary as also oral evidence. He next found that the record was accordingly erroneous and required to be corrected. He thus decreed the suit. The appeal before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge was dismissed and the decree of the trial Court was affirmed. The Defendants appealed before this Court and it was also dismissed. The finding reached by the original Court, and the first appellate Court about the Actual date of birth was not seriously disputed before the learned single Judge as would appear from the judgment of the second appeal.