JUDGMENT :

V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.

1. The date of birth of the appellant is in issue in the second appeal.

2. The appellant filed O.S. No. 492 of 2004 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama seeking for declaration that he was born on 15.10.1965 and that was recorded in the birth records of Gram Panchayat, Nandigama to declare that as the correct date of birth and pass such other orders as the Courts deems it proper. Five defendants are shown. On settling issues and on recording oral and documentary evidence the learned trial Court dismissed the suit.

3. Aggrieved of it, the plaintiff argued his first appeal in A.S. No. 72 of 2013 and the learned XVI Additional District Judge, Nandigama by judgment dated 24.02.2014 dismissed the appeal.

4. It is against that the plaintiff in the suit brought the second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. A Learned Judge of this Court admitted this appeal on 15.12.2017 on the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the benefit of the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act?

(2) Whether the entries made by the Registrar of Births (in the instant case the records of Gram Panchayat) will prevail over the self-serving statement of date of birth while admitting the ward in the school by his parent?

(3) Whether the Courts below can ignore the important fact brought to their notice about the difference in the mother of the plaintiff as well as the step-brother and younger stepsister of the plaintiff?

5. While the appeal was coming up for hearing the appellant filed I.A. No. 01 of 2018 under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w. Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission to produce additional evidence in the form of two documents.

6. Learned counsel for appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted their arguments.

7. The appellant was a Deputy Chief Air Craft Engineer in Air India Limited at Mumbai. There are seven children to his parents. Out of them, six are males and one is female and this appellant is the fifth child to his parents. While he was admitted into first class in MGH High School, Nandigama his date of birth was mentioned as 19.03.1964. That continued when he was admitted into 6th class also as per Ex.B1 and B2. The same continued when he studied tenth class. He furnished the same date of birth to his employer at the time of entry into service. At the fag-end of his service career, he pleaded and stated that on 25.06.2004 he realized that his correct date of birth was 15.10.1965 which was also entered into the birth records of Gram Panchayat, Nandigama. Finding that between the correct date of birth and incorrect date of birth the difference is one year six months and twenty six days and that would affect the date of his superannuation, he made requests to District Educational Officer/D3 and Head Master of the school where he studied/D4 requesting them to alter his date of birth in the records. Since they refused to do so, he filed the suit on 25.10.2004.

8. Defendants put in their written statement and took the stand that in terms of Exs.D7 and D8 Government Orders of the State of Andhra Pradesh and Rule 2A of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 procedure was prescribed and time limits were mandated for considering a request to carry out corrections in the date of birth but the plaintiff failed to pursue those remedies within the permitted time limits and therefore the suit cannot be maintained.

9. On evidence that was made available by both sides, the learned trial Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to seek declaration that he prayed for and dismissed the suit.

10. When the first appeal was heard, the learned Additional District Judge, considering the same evidence on record, held that the evidence of mother of the plaintiff who testified as PW-3 indicated that the time gap between birth of each of her child was about 2½ years. The date of birth of Smt Nirmala Kumari/sister