The evidentiary value of an order made under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is not conclusive proof of the date of birth and can only be used as a piece of evidence in subsequent proceedings.

1. An important question in respect of the evidentiary value of an order made under Section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 relating to the date of birth of an individual has arisen for consideration in this Second Appeal.

2. The appellant has filed O.S.No.5851 of 1989 before the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for a declaration that the date of birth of the appellant is 31.03.1941 and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 2 to 5 to alter the date of birth in the Service Register of the plaintiff as 31.03.1941 instead of 06.06.1938. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff was working as Principal Matron ( M1S) in the Directorate of Medical Services, Army Headquarters, New Delhi. According to her, in her Secondary School Leaving Certificate, due to ignorance and illiteracy of her parents, her date of birth was wrongly entered as 06.06.1938, though her actual date of birth is only 31.03.1941. When she applied for extract of the Birth Register, she was informed that her birth was not registered as required under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,1969. Thereafter, she filed a petition under Section 13(2) of the said Act before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti for an appropriate direction to register her date of birth in the birth Register as 31.03.11941. After holding summary enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate issued an order on 05.50.1986 (Ex.A.3) directing the Registering authority to register the date of birth of the appellant. Accordingly, the Headquarters, Deputy Tahsildar concerned, registered the birth of the appellant in the birth Register and issued an extract of the same on 14.05.1986 under Ex.A.4. Based on the same, the appellant made a request to the respondents 2 to 5 to enter her correct date of birth in all Service Records as 31.03.1941. But the said request was rejected. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present suit in O.S.No.5851 of 1989 for appropriate relief.

3. In the written statement filed before the trial Court, it was contended by the defendants 2 to 5 that the date of birth of the appellant is only 06.06.1938 and not 31.03.1941. The entry in the Service Records was made based on her Secondary School Leaving Certificate. In any event, if any change in the date of birth is to be made, as per the relevant rules, the aggrieved employee should approach the authority within a period of two years from the date of entry into service. But, in this case, since the request came forward from the plaintiff after several yeas of her joining the service, the said request cannot be complied with.

4. Based on the above pleading, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined herself as P.W.1 and as many as 14 documents were exhibited. On the side of the respondents 2 to 5, neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence was let in. The first defendant in the suit was the mother of the appellant. She remained exparte.

5. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court dismissed the suit. As against the same, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S.No.217 of 1995 before the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned VI Additional Judge dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the decree ad judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this Second Appeal.

6. When this Second Appeal was admitted, this Court framed the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant in spite of the order passed under Ex.Az.3 by the competent Court, which has become final?"

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 and also perused the records carefully.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Ex.A.3 is a judicial or