This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 96 of

CPC seeking for setting aside the judgment and decree

passed by the V Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru (CCH-13) in O.S.No.8881/2019 dated 26.08.2021

decreeing the suit of respondent and directing the appellants

to declaring the date of birth of the respondent/plaintiff is

- 3 -

16.12.1986 and not as 21.06.1983 and also directing the

appellant No.4/defendant No.4 RTO to rectify the date of

birth of the respondent's in the driving License.

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred

to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

Heard

the

learned

HCGP

for

the

appellants/defendants

and

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent/plaintiff.

The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is

that, he was born on 16.12.1986 and he filed a suit for

declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants

directing the defendants to rectify his date of birth in Driving

License as 16.12.1986 instead of 21.06.1983.

5.

The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is

that, he was born on 16.12.1986 at St. Philomena Hospital,

Neelasandra Road, Bengalore-560047 and his date of birth

mentioned in the 7th standard Marks sheet, 7th standard

Transfer Certificate, Election Identity Card, Aadhar card, Pan

card, SSLC marks card is 16.12.1986, but in the driving

- 4 -

license issued by the RTO, it is wrongly mentioned as

21.06.1983. In order to maintain uniformity in respect his

date of birth in driving license and to avoid future confusion

in his future career. He has approached the Passport

Authority,

Railway

Recruitment

Board

and

various

departments for the post of job on compassionate grounds,

he sought rectification of documents with respect to date of

birth. Hence, he is constrained to file the suit.

6.

The defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared through

learned III ADGP and filed written statement contending

that, defendant No.4 has issued the driving license valid up

to 06.09.2022 (NT) and 1.11.2020 (Transport) in the name

of the plaintiff Srinivas N of Bangalore along with date of

birth mentioned as 21.06.1983. Defendant No.4 contended

that according to the age proof of the plaintiff, they issued

driving license to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has ensured that he

has attained the age of 18 years as per the provisions of

section 8 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. But, now the plaintiff

is claiming that his date of birth is '16.12.1986' and not as

'21.06.1983'. As such if the same is considered, he would be

- 5 -

15 years 8 months 21 days as on the date of issuing the

driving license and he is under-aged, and he would not

entitled for obtaining the driving license as per the provisions

of Section 8 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It is further

contended that the plaintiff had given his date of birth proof

as 21.06.1983 to the said authority and obtained Driving

License on 07.09.2002. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of

the suit.

7.

Based upon the pleadings, the trial Court framed

the following issues as under:

"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his date of

birth is 16.12.1986 and not as 21.06.1983?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief

of mandatory injunction as sought for?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief

as sought for?

4) What order or decree?"

8.

The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got

marked 8 documents. The defendants have not lead any

evidence. The trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the

affirmative. Accordingly, suit was decreed directing the

- 6 -

defendant No.4/RTO to change the date of birth of the

plaintiff as 16.12.1986 instead of 21.06.1983. Being

aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court,

this appeal is preferred by the defendants/State.

9.

Learned HCGP appearing for the State seriously

contended that Judgment and decree passed by the trial

Court cannot be considered and illegal, erroneous and not

maintainable in law and on record. Learned HCGP contended

that if the date of birth of the