Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered in this second appeal, the respondent has entered appearance through Counsel and I have heard both the counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He filed the suit for a declaration that he was born on 7. 1957 and for a consequential mandatory injunction for correcting his date of birth as found in the S.S.L.C. Book, which showed the said date of birth as 7. 1956. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, both on merits and on the ground that the suit itself was barred by limitation. But, in the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff in SD.No.51 of 1989, the lower appellate Court accepted the case of the plaintiff that his date of birth was only 7. 1957 and not 7. 1956, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Against the said dismissal, this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

2. So, the only question to be dealt with in the present second appeal is about the abovesaid point of limitation. The relevant Article applicable in the present case would be Art.113, the residuary Article. There, the period of limitation is three year