Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Hari Nath Tilhari
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Appellant
Versus
GURUBASAPPA BASAPPA SAJJAN - Respondent
RSA 5 Of 1985
Decided On : 09/25/1995
Advocates Appeared :
N.B.VISHWANATH
Date of Birth - Declaration - Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 - Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act - Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Section 6 of the Karnataka State Servants' Determination of Age Act - [5. 3. 1950, 28. 6. 1948, Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 6 of the Karnataka State Servants' Determination of Age Act]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his correct date of birth to be 5. 3. 1950 and for consequential relief of correcting his date of birth in all educational certificates. The defendant contested the suit on grounds of limitation, maintainability, and non-joinder of necessary parties. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was upheld by the lower Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court and lower Appellate Court held in favor of the plaintiff, declaring his correct date of birth as 5. 3. 1950 and granting the consequential relief of correcting his date of birth in educational certificates. The courts also found the suit to be within time and maintainable, rejecting the defendant's contentions.
Issues: The issues involved the correctness of the plaintiff's date of birth, entitlement to consequential relief, limitation, maintainability, and non-joinder of necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the suit was maintainable and within time, and that the defendant's contentions were not valid. The courts also emphasized the importance of the declaration of date of birth and its legal implications.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' decisions in favor of the plaintiff.
Key Points from the Legal Document:
Such declarations do not directly affect the individual's service conditions unless proper alterations are sought from the relevant authorities under the applicable Act (!) (!) .
Nature and Scope of the Declaration:
Correcting educational certificates based on such declarations is permissible, but the actual change in the service record requires proper procedures under the relevant Age Determination Act (!) .
Suit for Declaration and Consequential Relief:
The inclusion of proper parties, such as the State or relevant educational authorities, is essential but can be deemed sufficient if the State is represented through its officials (!) (!) .
Limitation and Maintainability:
The suit was held to be within time and maintainable, despite challenges related to limitation and non-joinder of certain parties (!) (!) .
Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:
The authorities controlling the educational certificates (e.g., the educational board) are not necessarily required as parties for such declarations, especially when the State is properly represented (!) (!) .
Effect of the Declaration on Service Conditions:
The declaration of the date of birth by the civil court does not automatically impact the conditions of service unless the individual seeks an official alteration through the proper statutory process (!) .
Statutory Restrictions under the Age Determination Act:
Certain provisions of the Age Determination Act restrict courts from settling or deciding age-related questions that affect service conditions, emphasizing that alterations to service records must follow the prescribed procedures (!) (!) .
Procedure for Alteration of Age:
Alterations to the recorded age or date of birth in service records can only be made under the procedures specified in the Act, which include inquiries and opportunities for the individual to be heard (!) (!) .
Jurisdictional Limitations:
Courts do not have jurisdiction to decide questions of age or date of birth that directly impact service conditions unless the case falls outside the scope of the statutory restrictions (!) (!) .
Final Observations:
( 1 ) THIS is the defendant's Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3. 9. 1984 delivered by the Civil Judge, Bagalkot, Bijapur District, in R. A. 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 plaintiff's 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 and 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 CPC 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 (KSEEB) 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 CPC? v) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? vi) What order or decree?
The Trial Court answered Issues Nos. 1 and 2 in affirmative and Issues 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 Co
AI
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
