SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Kar) 462

HARI NATH TILHARI
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
GURUBASAPPA BASAPPA SAJJAN – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points from the Legal Document:

  1. Jurisdiction for Declaration of Date of Birth:
  2. Civil courts have jurisdiction to grant declarations regarding an individual's date of birth (!) (!) .
  3. Such declarations do not directly affect the individual's service conditions unless proper alterations are sought from the relevant authorities under the applicable Act (!) (!) .

  4. Nature and Scope of the Declaration:

  5. The decree declaring the correct date of birth is primarily a declaration of legal status and does not automatically alter the service record or conditions of employment (!) .
  6. 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 (!) .

  7. Suit for Declaration and Consequential Relief:

  8. A suit for declaration of the correct date of birth, along with consequential relief for correction in educational certificates, is maintainable in civil courts (!) (!) .
  9. 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 (!) (!) .

  10. Limitation and Maintainability:

  11. The suit was held to be within time and maintainable, despite challenges related to limitation and non-joinder of certain parties (!) (!) .

  12. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:

  13. 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 (!) (!) .

  14. Effect of the Declaration on Service Conditions:

  15. 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 (!) .

  16. Statutory Restrictions under the Age Determination Act:

  17. 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 (!) (!) .

  18. Procedure for Alteration of Age:

  19. 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 (!) (!) .

  20. Jurisdictional Limitations:

  21. 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 (!) (!) .

  22. Final Observations:

    • Declarations by civil courts regarding date of birth are valid and within jurisdiction, provided they do not directly alter service conditions without following the statutory procedures (!) .
    • Proper legal procedures must be followed for official alterations to service records, and courts' declarations do not substitute these procedures.

HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 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 Governmen

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top