Suit filed for correction of date of birth after 27 years.

The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare his date of birth as 16.8.1935 and for a direction to the defendants to effect the corrections in their official records.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was the only son to his parents and he was born in the month of August, 1935. The plaintiff lost his father when he was nine months old and his mother was illiterate. At the time when the plaintiff was admitted in the school, his date of birth was wrongly given by his mother as 8.10.1932 and the same was not correct. The plaintiff completed his school final in the year 1956 and in the certificate issued by the second defendant, his date of birth was wrongly entered as 8.10.1932. The plaintiff joined in the first defendant-Corporation on 26.5.1961 and there also, he has given his date of birth as 8.10.1932. It is stated that on 3.10.1988, he has obtained a certified extract of birth from the Taluk office, Villupuram and then only he came to know that his correct date of birth was 16th August, 1935 and not 8.10.1932. With the help of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the plaintiff applied to the first defendant on 25.1.1989 seeking to correct the records with regard to his date of birth as 16.8.1935, to which the first defendant gave a reply on 3.3.1989 stating that as per Rule 10(d) of the Standing order of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the date of birth cannot be altered contrary to school records. It is only thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

3. The first defendant, in his written statement, has stated that the plaintiff joined duty on 26.5.1961 and his Service Register was opened, in which, based upon his SSLC certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 8.10.1932. The plaintiff has also accepted the said date of birth and signed in the Service Register. Thereupon, a circular was sent on 30.12.1975 to confirm the date of birth wherein also his date of birth was mentioned as 8.10.1932 and the plaintiff acknowledged the same and did not raise any objection. Thereafter, only in the year 1989, the plaintiff gave a petition seeking to change his date of birth as 16.8.1935 instead of 8.10.1932 and the same was not accepted.

4. The second defendant filed a separate written statement almost adopting the statement of the first defendant.

5. The trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal by the first defendant in A.S.No.121 of 1991, the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

6. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration:

Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit after finding that the plaintiff's claim that he was born on 16.8.1935 was true?

7. The suit is one for a declaration to declare the date of birth of the plaintiff as 16.8.1935 instead of 8.10.1932 as recorded in the school certificate and other official records. The plaintiff has studied upto SSLC and in the school certificate, his date of birth was entered as 8.10.1932. Based upon the said certificate, the plaintiff joined duty with the first defendant on 26.5.1961. The first defendant gave a memo on 20.12.1975 to the plaintiff with regard to Establishment-Service Records-Date of Birth-Regarding, wherein it is stated as follows:

(i) "Thiru L Govindarajulu Son of Lakshmana Naidu employed as Steno in the P & M Division of the fertiliser unit/branch is informed that his date of birth as entered in his service record is 8.10.32.

(ii) He is directed to acknowledge receipt of this communication in the duplicate copy.

This memo was duly acknowledged by the plaintiff on 20.12.1975 and the said acknowledgement is available at the bottom of Ex.B1. Even after this memo, the plaintiff has not chosen to question the correctness of his date of birth. But, howev