( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is filed being aggrieved by a Judgment and decree daied 6-11-2000 made in A. S. No, 73 of 1999 on the file of the learned District judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, wherein the Judgment and Decree dated 8-9-1997 made in O. S. No. 46 of 1991 on the file of the learned I Additional District munsif, Rajahmundry, decreeing the suit, has been partly reversed.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff. Respondents are the defendants. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that she passed SSLC Examination from Town High school, Rajahmundry in March, 1964. Thereafter, she studied PUC, B. Sc. , and M. Sc. After completion of her studies, she joined as Lecturer in the 4th defendant s college in the year 1983. Her date of birth was mistakenly reported by her parents as 10-3-1948, The said incorrect date of birth was mentioned in the SSLC register. In October, 1989 she came to know that her date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 10-3-1948 instead of 24-4-1949. She was born at Rajahmundry and her date of birth was entered in the Municipal records as 24-4-1949. As her date of birth was incorrectly recorded in SSLC register as 10-3-1948, she has to retire prematurely by about one year. Before filing the suit, she had made all efforts with the authorities for correcting the date of birth, but they were of no avail. Hence, the suit.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 filed separate written statements. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant. In the written statement of the 3rd defendant, it is stated inter alia that the date of birth furnished by the plaintiff in her SSLC register is according to the statutes and they have adopted the same, Defendant No. 4. employer filed a separate written statement stating that the plaintiff is put to strict proof that her date of birth is 24-4-1949, If the plaintiff establishes her correct date of birth as 24-4-1949 and if defendants 1 to 3 accept the same and agree to correct the rdevant records, they have no objection to rectify the same in the College records also. Defendant No. 2 filed additional written slatement stating that the plaintiff has completed her SSLC examination in March, 1964. The plaintiff has not furnished the date of entry in the school, in which she was admitted. The said particulars are necessary for verification of her correct age by the date of appearance for SSLC examination or for admission into the School. Certain procedure has been prescribed by the Government for alteration of date of birth in the SSLC register and the plaintiff has not followed the same. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that her date of birth is 24-4-1949, but not 10-3-1948? 2. Whether the suit in bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the value of the suit is not correct? 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable under law? 5. To what relief? on behalf of the plaintiff, she examined herself as P. W. i and also examined one N. Rajeswari as P. W. 2 and marked Exs. A1 and A9. On behalf of the defendants, D. W. 1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B3 were marked. After an elaborate consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found that the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for and thus decreed the suit declaring the dale of birth of the plaintiff as 24-4-1949 and directed the defendants to rectify her date of birth in their registers as 24-4-1949 instead of 10-3-1948. Aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 and 2 carried the matter in appeal being A. S. No. 73 of 1999 on the file of the learned District judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The appellate Court, after reappreciation of the evidence on record and on perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, held that the declaration made by the tria

Click Here to Read the rest of this document