Suit can be filed only against person deying or interested to deny the right of plaintiff.

Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered on 212. 1994 in this second appeal, I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant as well as learned counsel for the defendant- respondent. The plaintiff has failed in both the courts below.

2. The suit is for declaring the correct date of birth of the plaintiff as 111. 1937 in her

S.S.L.C. Book and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to effect change of plaintiff’s date of birth as 111. 1937 instead of 24. 1937.

3. The suit has been concurrently dismissed by both the courts below. Though learned counsel for the appellant argues that pursuant to Ex.A.3, the horoscope of the plaintiff, Ex.A-1, the birth certificate issued by the municipal authority relating to the plaintiff, the relevant Government orders and the oral evidence the courts below ought to have decreed the suit as prayed for, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suit itself is not maintainable under Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act since the employer of the plaintiff, viz,, Meenakshi College, in which the plaintiff is a lecturer, has not been impleaded in the suit and there is no cause of action against the defendant- Director of School Education, the plaintiff having left the school about 37 years back. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the suit is also barred by limitation under Art.58 of the Limitation Act, since, though the plaint states that on 1. 1990 the plaintiff consulted an astrologer about her future as per her horoscope and that then only she discovered the defect in her date of birth in her S.S.L.C.Book Even P.W.I, the plaintiff (the sole witness on the side of the plaintiff) did not depose that she discovered the alleged defect only on 1. 1990 and in fact she did not refer to any date at all in this connection but only said.

4. In view of the abovesaid contention taken by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-impleading the proper person I have to first consider the said aspect.

5. First paragraph of Sec.34 of the new Specific Relief Act (corresponding to Sec.42 of the old Act) runs as follows: "34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right: Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title in such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled and that the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief." [Italics supplied]

The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the defendant- respondent is not such a person "denying or interested to deny." In this connection, he relies on the decision in D.Arul Raj v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (1973)1 L. W. 643 and the judgment of this Court in S.A. No.108 of 1958 relied on therein. The following passage in (1973)1 L.W. 645 is relied out by him: "Jagadeesan, J., in Second Appeal No.108 of 1958 held that the plaintiff in the suit was not entitled to a declaration under Sec.42 of the Specific Relief Act and the plaintiff had no cause of action at all against the Director of Public Instruction. That was a case where the plaintiff was serving in the Corporation of Madras was made a party in the second appeal for the first time.....In the view that the Director of Public Instruction was not in any way interested in denying the correct date of birth, the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration under Sec.42 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff there asked for a declaration of his correct date of birth as against the Director of Public Instructions who was absolutely unconcerned and disinterested in the matter and that the plaintiff had no cause of action at all against the Director of Pubic Instructions."

6. Learned counsel for the respondent also points out that in the written statement