IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Bahri, J.
Central Board Of Secondary Education - Appellant
Versus
Tanya Luthra & Ors. - Respondent
R.S.A. (Regular Second Appeal) No. 1482 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2021
Date of Birth Correction - Civil Suit - Section 6 of the Limitation Act - [Section 6 of the Limitation Act] - The court allowed the correction of date of birth and mother's name based on the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Ambala, and the interpretation of Section 6 of the Limitation Act. The court referred to previous judgments and established that a minor has the right to seek correction in the actual date of birth within three years after attaining majority.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking correction of her date of birth and her mother's name in her education records maintained by the defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit based on jurisdictional grounds, but the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate court found that the plaintiff's suit for correction of date of birth and mother's name was rightly decreed based on the evidence and previous judgments.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiff to the relief of declaration, the entitlement to consequential relief of mandatory injunction, maintainability of the suit, and jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 6 of the Limitation Act and previous judgments allowing correction of date of birth and parents' names in education records.
Final Decision: The present appeal was dismissed, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
JUDGMENT
Ritu Bahri, J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of reversal dated 01.10.2019 passed by the District Judge, Ambala, whereby appeal filed by Tanya Luthra-plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, has been accepted and suit of plaintiff (Tanya Luthra) has been decreed.
2. Plaintiff-Tanya Luthra (respondent No.1) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that her correct date of birth is 30.12.1995 and name of her mother is Rachna Luthra as per birth certificate issued by the Sub Registrar (Birth & Death), Municipal Corporation, Ambala (City Zone) on 03.04.1996 with consequential relief of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to correct the date of birth of plaintiff as 30.12.1995 instead of 01.11.1995 and her mother's name as "Rachna Luthra" instead of "Madhvi Luthra" in her education record maintained by defendant No.1- CBSE (appellant herein), especially in her Secondary Examination Certificate of June, 2011.
3. Upon notice, defendants filed separate written statements controverting the stand taken by the plaintiff in her plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to consequential relief of mandatory injunction for correction of her date of birth and her mother's name as prayed for?OPP
3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
4. Whether the jurisdiction of the court is barred? OPD
5. Relief.
5. Trial Court, after going through the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit on the ground that as per Rule 4 of the Examination byelaws, suit against the Board shall be filed in the name of the Secretary of the Board and it can be filed in the National Capital territory of Delhi only. The plaintiff resides in Ambala.
6. On appeal, judgment passed by the trial Court has been set aside and the suit has been decreed. Learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff) had argued that as per the Secondary School Examination certificate Ex.P1 and mark-sheet Ex.P2, date of birth of the plaintiff is mentioned as 01.11.1995 and the name of the mother of plaintiff has been mentioned as "Rachna Luthra", whereas, as per the Municipal record Birth certificate Ex.P4, correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 30.12.1995. However, the correct name of her mother is "Madhvi Luthra". Date of birth and name of plaintiff's mother was given by her parents at the time of admission and the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for correction would be in a Court in Delhi.
7. The lower appellate Court has referred to the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Ambika Kaul vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, (2015) 2 LAR 264, wherein it has been held that if, wrong date of birth is recorded in the school when the child was minor, then he can dispute the date of birth within 03 (three) years after attaining the majority. As per Section 6 of the Limitation Act, minor has a right to seek correction in the actual date of birth on the basis of certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths. In no case, the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate should be corrected after three years of attaining majority on the basis of date of birth in the birth certificate. Before the trial Court, plaintiff had produced on record her date of birth certificate Ex.P4, which was issued by the Municipal Corporation, Ambala, in which her date of birth was mentioned as 30.12.1995 and names of her parents were mentioned as Rajesh Kumar and Madhvi. However, as per Secondary School examination certificate as Ex.P1, Central Board of Secondary Education as Ex.P2 and Senior School Certificate Examination as Ex.P3, name of her mother is mentioned as Rachna Luthra and her date of birth is m
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.