SRI MANCHAPPA K v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

(BY SRI H K KENCHEGOWDA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.01.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.42/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20377 RSA No. 1210 of 2020 J U D G M E N T This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

The factual matrix of the case of the appellant before the Trial Court is that he was a student in the school of defendant No.6. At the time of admission, his date of birth was properly mentioned. The date of birth of the plaintiff is mentioned by defendant Nos.5, 8 to 10 in the school records as 05.04.1966. Defendant No.2, in the 10th marks card, mentioned the date of birth of the plaintiff as 01.06.1959. Hence, the plaintiff approached the defendants to rectify the said mistake and also issued legal notice but the defendants failed to comply with the same. The plaintiff is working as a Bill Collector in the Bilavani village Panchayat and due to the mistake in his birth date, he was deprived from the facilities. Therefore, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit. The defendants, on receipt of the suit summons, appeared and filed the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20377 RSA No. 1210 of 2020 written statement contending that there is no mistake from the defendants with respect to the change of date of birth of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not having any right to change his date of birth.

The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the following Issues:

Whether the plaintiff proves that his date of birth is 05.04.1966 and the same was wrongly entered in the school records of the plaintiff maintained by the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought?

The Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties, allowed them to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P6. On the other hand, the defendants have examined one witness as DW1 and got marked the documents at - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20377 RSA No. 1210 of 2020 Ex.D1 to D6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that his date of birth is 05.04.1966 hence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to rectify the date of birth of plaintiff in his school records. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the State. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record formulated the following Points:

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 05.04.1966?

2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is perverse, capricious and interference? If so, what order or direction?

The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of material on record answered Point No.1 as negative in coming to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20377 RSA No. 1210 of 2020 the Trial Court is perverse and capricious and reversed the finding of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court by the appellant/plaintiff.

The counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that though the First Appellate Court admits that Ex.P1 is the school certificate issued by the Government Higher Primary School from 1st to 7th standard which shows that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 05.04.1966; Ex.P2 is the school certificate of the plaintiff from 8th to 10th standard wherein also date of birth is shown as

05.04.1966 and Ex.P5 is the SSLC marks card where the date of birth of the plaintiff is shown as 01.06.1959 and Ex.P6 is the birth certificate of the plaintiff where the date of birth of the plaintiff is shown as 05.04.1966, has totally erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no supporting document to hold that the real date of birth of the plaintiff is 05.04.1966. The counsel also would - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:20377 RSA No. 1210 of 2020 vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court has thoroughly confused itself in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff got a direction to get his birth certificate on the basis of the non-availability certificate. The non- availability certificate will be issued if the date of birth is not being registered in the register maintained by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. In order to get the date of birth registered, the only remedy left to the plaintiff is to get the necessary directions from the competent Court and accordingly, he had filed Crl. Misc.223/2006 and the learned Magistrate after following the due procedure laid down under law has passed the appropriate order. But the First Appellate Court fails to consider the same and erroneously comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has committed an error in granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff. The counsel would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court inspite of the plaintiff had proved his date of birth. Hence, - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:20377 RSA No. 1210 of 2020 the counsel prayed this Court to frame the substantial questions of law admitting the appeal.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court not committed any error in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court having taken note of the admission on the part of the appellant/plaintiff, re-appreciated the material on record and also taken note of the evidence of DW1 wherein he deposed that Ex.D1 is the Admission Register extract which shows that the plaintiff’s date of birth is 01.06.1959 and Ex.D2 is the application for admission to 8th standard and the said document also shows that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 01.06.1959 and the First Appellate Court observed that the plaintiff has not filed any application before the competent authority that is Rural Development Authority for correction of his date of birth. The First Appellate Court also relied upon the documents of Ex.D4 to D6 wherein also the date of birth of the plaintiff is - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:20377 RSA No. 1210 of 2020 mentioned as 01.06.1959. Except the order passed in Crl. Misc.223/2006 stating that date of birth of the plaintiff is 05.04.1966, there is no any supporting document to hold that his date of birth is 05.04.1966. All these aspects have been taken note of by the First Appellate Court. Apart from that Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is also taken note of by the First Appellate Court and also the judgments. In paragraph 30, taken note of Section 4 of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 wherein states that there is a bar of alteration of age except under the Act. Hence, the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that this petitioner was appointed to the job in the year 1982 as a Bill Collector in Bilavani Village Panchayat. It is admitted by the appellant in the cross-examination that earlier he had filed a suit in - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:20377 RSA No. 1210 of 2020 O.S.No.35/2013 and the same was withdrawn and also he categorically admits that he had approached Magistrate filing Crl. Misc. No.223/2006. It is settled law that when the plaintiff appointed as an employee of the Government, within three years, he has to approach the competent authority for determination of his age under the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 but the same has not been done by the plaintiff inspite of it, he had approached the Civil Court as well as the Magistrate. When the plaintiff become the employee of the Government, he ought to have approached the competent authority and not the civil Court or Magistrate for correction of date of birth.

The counsel for the appellant brought to notice of this Court that in the school records from 1st to 7th standard, date of birth is mentioned as 05.04.1966 and the mistake was crept in the SSLC marks card. The said - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:20377 RSA No. 1210 of 2020 contention cannot be accepted and this Court cannot go into the merits of the case when the appellant has not approached the competent authority and instead of that he has approached the wrong forum for determination of his date of birth. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal to frame the substantial questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. The Court has to take note of the conduct of the appellant and the method adopted for correction of date of birth.