Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri B.S. Mahesha, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 3-10-2015 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, in O.S. No.25197 of 2013, which dismissed his suit for declaration. The appellant, working as Deputy General Manager in Tata Consulting Engineers Limited, sought a declaration that his date of birth is 29-9-1959 instead of 21-9-1956 as recorded in his SSLC marks card, and for correction of his school records. He contended that he was born on 29-9-1959 at Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District, and that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the SSLC marks card issued on 7-6-1974. He claimed he discovered the error only in 2013 when he applied for a passport. The respondents, including the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board and the State, opposed the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant failed to prove his case and that the suit was barred by limitation. In appeal, the High Court noted that the appellant had not produced any credible evidence to prove his actual date of birth, such as a birth certificate or horoscope. The court observed that the suit was filed after 40 years of passing SSLC, at the fag end of his service, and the delay was not explained. The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal - Section 96 CPC - Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of date of birth - The appellant sought to correct his date of birth in school records from 21-9-1956 to 29-9-1959 after 40 years of passing SSLC. The trial court dismissed the suit. The High Court held that the appellant failed to prove his case and the suit was barred by limitation and delay. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Section 101 Evidence Act, 1872 - The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that his date of birth was 29-9-1959. The documents produced were not credible and the suit was filed at the fag end of his service. (Paras 8-10) C) Limitation - Correction of School Records - Suit for declaration of date of birth filed after 40 years is barred by limitation and delay. The appellant did not explain the delay. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to a declaration that his date of birth is 29-9-1959 instead of 21-9-1956 and for correction of his school records at the fag end of his service.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 3-10-2015 passed in O.S. No.25197 of 2013 by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Correction of date of birth
- Delay and laches
- Limitation for correction of school records
- Evidence Act
- 1872 - Section 101
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 - Section 96
