Heard the Counsel for the parties.

2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The suit was for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff was born on 5.2.1951 and the date of birth given as 5.2.1947 in his School Cumulative Record, is a mistake and for consequential rectification of his Service Register maintained by the fourth defendant representing his employer, New India Assurance Company Limited.

It was the plaintiff's case that he was born on 5.2.1951 in Thokur Village of Mangalore Taluk. His date of birth is said to be borne out by the Birth Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mangalore Taluk, as also by his original Horoscope. It is his case that his father died a year after the plaintiff's birth. The plaintiff was admitted to school by his grand-father and it is claimed that he had passed SSLC examination in the year 1966, from the Board High School. In the year, 1969, he had joined the New India Assurance Company Limited on temporary basis. In the year 1973, he was taken on probation and subsequently confirmed in the services of the company. In the Service Register, the date of birth entered was 5.2.1947, which is said to be based on the Cumulative Record of the plaintiff. This error had gone unnoticed. It is in the year 2002, that while casually conversing with his uncle one Vittala Shetty, that the plaintiff was informed that he was born on 5.2.1951. It was then that the plaintiff realized the serious error as to his date of birth in the school records and on account of that error, the consequences that followed were manifold, especially with regard to his career and service prospects. Hence, the plaintiff had approached his employer seeking correction of his date of birth and when all efforts failed, he had got issued a legal notice in this regard to his employer as well as other defendants, namely, the Director of Public Instructions and the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District, to comply with Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as there was no positive response from any quarter, the suit was filed.

The suit was contested by the fourth defendant – his employer. The plaint allegations were denied as to the plaintiff's date of birth being 5.2.1951. It is contended that the date of birth of the plaintiff was recorded in his Service Register in accordance with the guidelines of the Company in respect of verification and admission of age of its employees, as also on the basis of acceptable proof of age, supplied by the plaintiff at the time of his appointment and entry of the date of birth made in the basic staff records on the basis of the guidelines prescribed, is conclusive evidence of an employee's date of birth for the purpose of his service and the plaintiff seeking to claim correction of his date of birth after three decades of service and having reaped the benefits with reference to his higher age is estopped from contending his age as being otherwise towards, the fag-end of his service. The other consequence of any such correction being made at the instance of the plaintiff, would affect the seniority, promotion prospects and other benefits of other employees with a cascading effect, which would militate against any equitable relief being granted in favour of the plaintiff.

On these contentions, the trial court placed the burden of establishing his case entirely on the plaintiff and held all the issues framed against the plaintiff.

This having been carried in appeal, the first appellate court framed the following points as arising for its consideration:-

"1. Whether it is just and necessary to allow I.A.No.2 and 3, filed in the instant appeal?

2. Whether it is just and proper to allow I.A.No.4 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed in the instant appeal?

3. Whether the lower Court has committed any error in appreciating t