2025:CGHC:61711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 768 of 2019 Rambai Chandrakar Wd/o. Late Manharanlal, Aged About 80 Years R/o.

Purana Ravanbhara, Mahasamund, Police Station And Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh( Plaintiff)

... Appellant versus

1 - Deputy Registrar Birth And Death Department Municipal Council, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Defendant)

2 - Chandrahas Chandrakar, S/o Late Maharan Lal Chandrakar, Aged About 59 Years R/o S-32 Extension Of Sector-1 Avanti Vihar Colony, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Defendant)

... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

17/12/2025

1. Present is the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment Digitally and decree dated 16-08-2019, passed by learned First Additional signed by VED VED PRAKASH PRAKASH DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date:

2026.02.02 District Judge, Mahasamund in Civil Appeal No. H-058/2019,

+0530

whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff is dismissed and the

judgment and decree dated 28-01-2019, passed by learned 2^nd Civil Judge Class-2, Mahasamund, in Civil Suit No. 56-A/2018 has been affirmed.

2. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit for declaration that the date of birth of the defendant No. 2, Chandrahas Chandrakar is 11-07-1959 and also for permanent injunction to declare any other date of birth except the correct date of birth as 11-07-1959. The plaintiff had pleaded in her plaint that, she had married with Manharan Lal Chandrakar and out of their wedlock, five children have been born including the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 was born on 11-07-1959, and thereafter her other children were born. In the month of August 2018, when the dispute arose in the family with respect to the family properties, which travelled up to community meeting and the issue raised in the community meeting with the legitimacy of the defendant No. 2, as the plaintiff had married in the year 1957 and she could not deliver child in the year 1957 itself, and then the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No. 2 had disclosed his date of birth as 03-01-1957 in various places and she considered it to be her defamation, which is stigmatic on her character and therefore, the present suit has been filed. The defendant No. 1 has filed his written statement, in which he disclosed that the civil suit pertains to correction of date of birth of defendant No. 2 and being the government employee, he is having no personal knowledge of the fact as the Municipal Council, Mahasamund came into existence in the year 1968.

3. The defendant No. 2 has also filed his written statement and admitted the claim of the plaintiff. He stated in his written statement that, at the time of admission in the school, his date of birth was recorded by a servant of the house and he on his own got it recorded as 03-01-1957. The date of birth disclosed by his mother may be his correct date of birth.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues:-

“1- D;k izfroknh Ø- 02 dh okLrfod tUe frFkh 11-07-1959 gS \

}2- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;\”

5. In support of her claim, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1 and Smt. Purnima Bai Chandrakar as PW-2, and relied upon the document (exhibit P/1), which is the pedigree of the plaintiff, Exhibit P/2 is the mutation register, Exhibit P/3 is the higher secondary mark- sheet of board examination of the daughter of the plaintiff, Exhibit P/4 is the higher secondary mark-sheet of son of the plaintiff and Exhibit P/5 is the higher secondary mark-sheet of another son of the plaintiff.

The defendants have not laid any evidence.

6. After evaluating the evidence available on record produced by the parties, the learned trial Court comes to the conclusion that, the plaintiff has f