Suit filed barred by limitation.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.129 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Palani is the appellant in the above second appeal. He filed the suit for declaration declaring that his correct date of birth was 11. 1948, he belongs to Theeya Community and in consequence, a direction to the defendants to make suitable corrections in the S.S.L.C. Book.

2. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff is the permanent resident of Agraharam, A.Kaliamputhur, Palani Taluk. His father died while he was young and he was brought up by his mother Vellaiammal, who is an illiterate. The plaintiff was born on 11. 1948 in the headquarters hospital at Coimbatore. His date of birth was reported by the Medical Officer of the hospital and the same was registered in the Coimbatore Municipality. The plaintiff belongs to Theeya Community. But it is generally mentioned as Hindu in the birth extract maintained in the Municipality at Coimbatore. The plaintiff was admitted in the Panchayat Elementary School in the Agraharam of A.Kalaiamputhur and at the time of his admission his mother being an illiterate woman furnished the date of birth to the school authorities as 6. 1946 instead of 11. 1948. Since she was working in a mill from 7.00 am to 7.00 p.m. she requested one peon to admit the plaintiff in the school. The mother signed the S.S.L.C. book declaration also without noting the wrong date of birth mentioned therein. In the S.S.L.C. book also the caste has been noted as Nayar instead of Theeya Community. This mistake also occurred because of the ignorance of the mother. After getting copy of the birth extract the plaintiff came to know that his date of birth has been wrongly noted and that his community also has been wrongly noted as Nayar instead of Theeya Community. After knowing this mistake he has been repeatedly writing to the Education Department for the correction of his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. Book. But no favourable reply was given by the Education Department. Ultimately, the plaintiff issued notice on 20.3.1978 to the defendants. The Director of School Education sent a reply stating that the request of the plaintiff cannot be entertained. The District Collector also sent a reply that the notice issued by the plaintiff was recorded. Under the law and equity, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his correct date of birth and community. The abovesaid declaration will not prejudice the defendants in any way. Hence the present suit.

3. The second defendant filed written statement and the other defendants adopted the same. The averments in the written statement are as follows: The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration that his correct date of birth is 11. 1948 and he belongs to Theeya Community. The suit as framed is not maintainable in law and on facts. The entries of name, date of birth etc. in the Secondary School Leaving Certificates are governed by the subsidiary Rule No.5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Scheme. As per the said Rule, the request for alteration of date of birth cannot be considered after the pupil completed his school course, sat for public examination, marks entered and the certificate completed. When once the plaintiff ceased to be a student, there is no relationship between him and the Director of Public Instruction and there is no Regulation also to direct the Director of Public Instruction to correct the date of birth. The entries regarding the date of birth, caste etc., are filled in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate only on the information furnished by the parent or guardian of the student at the time of admission into the Elementary School. The parent or guardian is given an opportunity to get any defect in the entry rectified at the time of preparation of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. Hence at this stage, there is no necessity to direct the defendants to correct the date of birth and caste of the plaintiff in t