Back
2011 (5) Supreme 591
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
The Registrar General, High Court of Madras — Appellant
versus
M. Manickam and Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7030-7031 of 2011
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3780-3781 of 2008]
Decided on : 17-8-2011
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 –Section 13-Sub-Section(1) of Section 13 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 provides that any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after expiry of the period specified therein, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed- Sub-section (2) thereof provides that any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of prescribed fee and production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorized in this behalf by State Government- Sub-section (3) of Section 30 also provides that any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee- Nothing in the evidence to indicate that pre-conditions and requisites of sub-section (3) of Section 30 were followed in the instant case by respondent 1- No order of Magistrate of first class or Presidency Magistrate was placed on record to prove and establish that such an order was passed after verifying correctness of birth nor any other connected document thereof was placed on record -Hence, held that change apparently was not made in terms of mandate of Section 13 of Act, 1969 (Para 19)
Facts of the Case :
A Suit was filed by Respondent 1 a District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate herein in the instant case seeking change of his date of birth. Case of Respondent 1 that in his service records, his date of birth had been entered as 19.03.1947, as found in S.S.L.C. Book, whereas his actual date of birth was 24.11.1950 and that due to wrong entry of his date of birth in the service records, he would retire from his service 3 years, 8 months and 5 days before his actual date of superannuation. Order was passed by Munsif Court decreeing suit in favour of Respondent 1.Appeal thereagainst was Allowed by Sub Judge. Second Appeal was Allowed by High Court. However Review Petition was Dismissed.
2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
There was No dispute that Respondent while filing said application did not follow the mandate and requisites of Rule 30 of Rules. The application was not addressed to State Government nor the procedure prescribed in sub-Rule (a), which is applicable even for a case where sub-Rule (b) applies was not adhered to nor said application was filed within five years. Hence, in terms of sub-rule (c) it was to be summarily rejected. Reliance was placed by respondent No. 1 on the evidence of doctor and medical certificate. However held that said medical certificate was very vague and unreliable. Whether or not any radiological examination was done and if so, of what nature, and also whether any ossification test was done or not was not reflected from said report. Again respondent No. 1 failed to discharge his onus in proving authenticity of horoscope on which reliance was placed. Since respondent 1 failed to prove that any change of date of birth was called for in the instant case. Hence impugned judgment of High Court was set aside. Appeals were allowed.
Please provide the legal document content (insert it within
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeals are filed against the judgments and orders dated 15.03.2007 and 21.07.2007 in Second Appeal No. 1064 of 2005, and Review Petition No. 19 of 2007, respectively, passed by the Madras High Court whereby it dismissed the second appeal and the review petition filed by the appellant herein accepting the contentions raised by the Respondent No. 1. By its judgments and orders aforementioned, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of Subordinate Court and restored the judgment and decree of District Munsif Court dated 09.10.2002.
4. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that the Respondent No. 1- M. Manickam joined the State Subordinate Judicial Service as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate on 04.11.1988, after getting duly selected for the said post by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It is alleged by the Respondent No. 1 that in his service records, his date of birth has been entered as 19.03.1947, as found in the S.S.L.C. Book, whereas his actual date of birth is 24.11.1950 and that due to the wrong entry of his date of birth in the service records, he would retire from his service 3 years, 8 months and 5 days before his actual date of superannuation.
5. He submitted a letter dated 07.10.1993 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari requesting him for permission to peruse his service register in which he submitted that his date of birth has wrongly been submitted. He also requested him for supplying of requisite proforma for changing his date of birth. Thereafter Respondent No. 1 submitted an application dated 11.11.1993 to Registrar, High Court of Madras seeking change of his date of birth. In response to his application, the Administrative Officer of the High Court asked for certain particulars and documents in response to which Respondent No. 1 submitted his reply vide letter dated 27.01.1994.
6. Subsequent thereto Respondent No. 1 filed a Suit before the District Munsif Court, Karur, which was registered as O.S. No. 549/1995, for a declaration that his date of birth is 24.11.1950 and for a mandatory injunction to enter his date of birth in his S.S.L.C. book and in the Service Records as 24.11.1950, instead of 19.03.1947. The Munsif Court vide order dated 09.10.2002 decreed the suit in favour of Respondent No. 1 and against Respondent Nos. 2-4. The Munsif Court granted mandatory injunction against Respondent Nos. 2-4 to make the change of date of birth in their S.S.L.C. book. However, mandatory injunction against the present appellant to alter the date of birth in the service register was not granted.
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Munsif Court, Respondent Nos. 2-4 filed an appeal before the Sub-Judge, Karur which was allowed by the Sub-Judge by its judgment and order dated 12.10.2004. Against the said order of the Sub-Judge, Respondent No. 1 preferred Second Appeal before the High Court of Madras which was registered as S.A. No. 1064 of 2005. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 15.03.2007 allowed the second appeal of the Respondent No. 1 and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Review Petition filed by the appellant herein before the High Court also got dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2007. Against these orders of the High Court, viz., 15.03.2007 and 21.07.2007 the appellant has filed the present appeals, on which we heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the application filed by the respondent seeking for change of his date of birth was filed after the period of limitation contemplated under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) which is five years and therefore the decree and the judgment passed by the High Court affirming the decree of the Munsif is illegal and erroneous. In support of the said contention, the counsel relied upon t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
