The court clarified the maintainability of the suit and the scope of the decree in relation to the plaintiff's service conditions.

( 1 ) THIS is the defendant's Second Appeal against the judgment and decreedated 3-9-1984 delivered by the Civil Judge, bagalkot, Bijapur District, in Regular Appeal No. 27 of 1984 (The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, representing the government of Karnataka v Gurubasappa Basappa Sajjan) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 2-3-1984 delivered by the Munsiff, Badami, in O. S. No. 7 of 1983 (Gurubasappa S/o Basappa Sajjan v The Deputy commissioner, Bijapur, representing the Government of karnataka) decreeing the plaintiffs suit for declaration of his date of birth to be 5-3-1950 and not 28-6-1948 as shown in the school certificate.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff/respondent alleges that in the school certificate his date of birth was shown as 28-6-1948 and that the said date of birth is said to have been entered on the approximation given by his parents at the time of his admission to the primary school and that his real and exact date of birth is 5-3-1950. It had been stated in the plaint that as the difference of age in the educational certificates and the birth extract came to his notice and a legal notice was issued to the Government under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction and rectification in the certificates. The plaintiff alleges that as there was no action taken on the notice, he filed the suit. Further, he alleges that the cause of action arose on 1-1-1983. The plaintiff claimed in the suit the relief of declaration of his date of birth to be 5-3-1950 as his correct date of birth. He also claimed the consequential relief that the same may be entered by correction in all educational certificates by the authorities concerned. So, he prayed for the grant of decree declaring his correct date of birth as 5-3-1950 and consequential relief of entering his correct date of birth in all educational certificates and records.

( 3 ) NO doubt, the plaintiff has stated that the wrong date of birth shown in the educational certificates affects him adversely into Government service and deprives him of the benefits under the Government service.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant on many grounds. It was alleged that the allegations made in the plaint are not admitted. Instead, the said allegations were said to be vague. The defendant also took up the plea that the suit was barred by limitation and, according to the defendant, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date of attaining majority. Further, the suit was not maintainable. The defendant contested the suit on another ground stated in the written statement that the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not in accordance with law and did not comply with the requirements of Section 80, C. P. C. and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The other ground on which the maintainability of the suit was challenged by the defendant was that the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (K. S. E. E. B.) had not been made a party to the suit.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues: (I) Whether the plaintiff proves that his correct date of birth is 5-3-1950 and not 28-6-1948 shown in the school certificate? (II) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to the consequential relief to get corrected the date of birth in school certificates? (III) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not in time? (IV) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not maintainable for non-compliance with Section 80, c. P. C. ? (V) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (VI) What order or decree? the Trial Court answered Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in affirmative and Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in negative. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that his correct date of birth is 5-3-1950 and the date of birth mentioned in the educational certificates as 28-6-1948 to be wrong. The Trial court f