The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration of the correct date of birth, even with a further relief for rectification of school records, is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court also emphasized the availability of remedies under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the autonomy of the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board to correct its own registers or documents.

( 1 ) A batch of Second Appeals have come up for hearing. These appeals relate to the question of declaration of the correct date of birth of the plaintiffs concerned in those appeals. As, on the discussion, it was found that a common question of law was likely to arise in all these appeals, the Court invited members of the Bar whether or not appearing in any of these cases, to assist the court. Some of the Advocates of a number of years standing, did assist the Court. The Court is thankful to them.

( 2 ) THE appellants in this appeal were the defendants in the Trial Court. The Respondent plaintiff filed the suit in question for declaration that his correct date of birth is 9-11-1956 and not 10-12-1954 as noted in the School records of the defendants pertaining to him. He prayed for costs of the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff averred in the plaint that he was born in his parents house on 9. 11. 1956; completed his early education in Government Primary Boys School, Shiralkoppa and then joined middle School at Shiralkoppa. He completed his studies in High School and in Municipal secondary School Shiralkoppa and completed his S. S. L. C. in the National Multi Purpose Higher secondary School, Shimoga, in the year 1971. He completed his P. U. C. and passed his B. A. , degree in 1979. He has gone on to narrate other facts which would not be, in my opinion, very material for a decision in this appeal. According to him, he reasonably suspected that his date of birth had been wrongly entered and this had happened in the first week of June 1981. He searched for the horoscope and on verifying the same, he found out that his correct date of birth was 9. 11. 1956 and not 10 12. 1954. He went to the Taluk office to have an authenticated public document, but found that his date of birth was not entered in the Birth Register maintained in the taluk office. He therefore, issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 31-7-1981 and got the same served on the defendants. According to him, the cause of action arose in the first week of June 1981 when he noticed the mistake.

( 4 ) THE defendant filed their written statement and urged that the suit was highly belated. There was no cause of action to file the suit and the cause of action mentioned by the plaintiff is an imaginary one. According to them, the mistake or wrong entry of the date of birth was committed at the Government Primary Boys School, Shiralkoppa and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction. It is maintained that the date of birth as forwarded from the Educational Institutions concerned upto the taking of the S. S. L. C. examination by the plaintiff, has continued to appear in the records.

( 5 ) THE Trial Court decreed the suit in regard to declaration and further directed that the date of birth of the plaintiff in school records should be rectified to show 9. 11. 1956. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree.

( 6 ) THIS Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law while admitting the appeal on 5-1-1984. (I) Whether the present suit for correcting the date of birth by a non-Government servant is maintainable ? (2) Whether the present suit for correcting the date of "birth in the S. S. L. C. Certificate without the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board being made a party is sustainable ?

( 7 ) I am unable to understand how it can be said under the facts and circumstances of the case that the first question formulated does arise. If at all it has to raise, it can only be from the perspective of such a suit for bare declaration being maintainable or not. The plaintiff being non-Government servant or otherwise would not matter at all.

( 8 ) THE plaintiff has not chosen to make the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board a party to the suit. He has not prayed that his date of birth in the S. S. L. C. Certificate be directed to be rectified. S. S. L. C. Certificate is provided by the said Board as required by