( 1 ) THE State of Karnataka is before me challenging the concurrence findings of the 3rd Additional Munsiff, belgaum in O. S. No. 153/1992 and confirmed in R. A. No. 163/1991 by the III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Belgaum.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF filed a suit in O. S. No. 153/1992 seeking for declaratory relief with regard to his date of birth being 10-9-1945. He also sought for a direction to correct the entry of his date of birth in S. S. C. Certificate and marks statement. In the plaint, the plaintiff states that he was born on 10th September 1945 at Kasarkop Village in Sampgaon Taluk of Belgaum District. Horoscope was prepared. Horoscope shows his date of birth as 10-9-1945. Tahsildar, bailhongal entered the name of the plaintiff in the birth and death register maintained in the office as 10-9-1945. He was admitted in the Primary School, Hosur, Shahapur, belgaum. The register maintained by the primary School also shows that the petitioners date of birth as 10-9-1945. He studied up to 7th standard in the primary school, hosur. Thereafter, he joined the Karnataka shikshan Samitl Kannada Training College in Belgaum and completed the course in the year 1958. He joined the Government service in the year 1962. In the service register also it was shown as 10-9-1945.

( 3 ) HE appeared as an external candidate for the S. S. C. examination in the year 1959-60 at M. J. High School, Bailhongal. While appearing as an external candidate, his date of birth was shown as 10-9-1945 in the school Leaving Certificate. However, while issuing the marks statement of S. S. C. examination, the date of birth was not correctly mentioned. He sought for mentioning of the same in the marks card. He issued a written notice. He submitted necessary details. Even then, it was not done. In those circumstances, he filed a suit. The defendants entered their appearance through their counsel. They stated that the suit was not maintainable. One witness was examined in addition to filing 19 documents. Nobody was examined on behalf of the defendant. The trial Judge passed the following order :"in the result, suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed and declare that his date of birth is 10-9-1945 based on the birth certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bailhongal, as per ex. P2 and the defendant No. 2-Board shall have to enter the above said date 10-9-1945 in the S. S. C. Certificate of the plaintiff in the ends of justice. Under the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their costs. "

( 4 ) APPEAL was filed by the State government. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

( 5 ) THE Government is before me challenging these two concurrent findings.

( 6 ) HEARD Sri. Tajuddin, learned Government pleader appearing for the State. His essential contention is that the Karnataka state Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 comes in the way of relief in favour of the plaintiff.

( 7 ) IN the light of the submission of the learned counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. The Trial Judge has framed 5 issues reading as under :1) whether plaintiff proves that his date of birth is 10-9-1945?2) whether defendant proves that the suit is barred by time?3) Whether defendants ptrove that this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and injunction as prayed for?5) What order or decree?

( 8 ) HE has answered issues 1 and 4 in affirmative and issues 2 and 3 in negative. The learned Judge notices all the material facts referred to in the plaint and thereafter, has held in favour of the plaintiff. He has also noticed various documents including ex. P1, original horoscope, Ex. P2, birth extract, Ex. P3, Leaving Certificate, Ex. P4 certificate issued by the M. J. High School. Ex. P17 K. G. I. D. Policy, Ex. P18 G. P. F. application copy. After noticing all these documentary evidence, he has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff was born on 10-9-1945. The said finding is based on both oral a