REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7030-7031 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3780-3781 of 2008]

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS                   ....Appellant  

VERSUS

M. MANICKAM AND ORS.                              ....Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. Delay condoned.  

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeals are filed against the judgments and orders dated  

15.03.2007 and 21.07.2007 in Second Appeal No. 1064 of 2005, and  

Review Petition No. 19 of 2007, respectively, passed by the Madras  

Page 1 of 25

High Court whereby it dismissed the second appeal and the review  

petition filed by the appellant herein accepting the contentions raised  

by  the  Respondent  No.  1.  By  its  judgments  and  orders  

aforementioned, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of  

Subordinate Court and restored the judgment and decree of District  

Munsif Court dated 09.10.2002.  

4. The facts leading to the filing of  the present appeals are that the  

Respondent  No.  1-  M.  Manickam  joined  the  State  Subordinate  

Judicial  Service  as  District  Munsif-cum-Judicial  Magistrate  on  

04.11.1988, after getting duly selected for the said post by the Tamil  

Nadu Public Service Commission. It is alleged by the Respondent No.  

1 that in his service records, his date of birth has been entered as  

19.03.1947, as found in the S.S.L.C. Book, whereas his actual date  

of birth is 24.11.1950 and that due to the wrong entry of his date of  

birth in the service records, he would retire from his service 3 years,  

8 months and 5 days before his actual date of superannuation.  

5. He  submitted  a  letter  dated  07.10.1993  to  the  Chief  Judicial  

Magistrate,  Kanyakumari  requesting him for  permission to peruse  

his service register in which he submitted that his date of birth has  

Page 2 of 25

wrongly  been submitted.   He also  requested him for  supplying of  

requisite  proforma  for  changing  his  date  of  birth.  Thereafter  

Respondent  No.  1  submitted  an  application  dated  11.11.1993  to  

Registrar, High Court of Madras seeking change of his date of birth.  

In response to his application, the Administrative Officer of the High  

Court asked for certain particulars and documents in response to  

which  Respondent  No.  1  submitted  his  reply  vide  letter  dated  

27.01.1994.

6. Subsequent thereto Respondent No. 1 filed a Suit before the District  

Munsif Court, Karur, which was registered as O.S. No. 549/1995, for  

a  declaration  that  his  date  of  birth  is  24.11.1950  and  for  a  

mandatory injunction to enter his date of birth in his S.S.L.C. book  

and in the Service Records as 24.11.1950, instead of  19.03.1947.  

The Munsif Court vide order dated 09.10.2002 decreed the suit in  

favour of Respondent No. 1 and against Respondent Nos. 2-4. The  

Munsif Court granted mandatory injunction against Respondent Nos.  

2-4  to  make  the  change  of  date  of  birth  in  their  S.S.L.C.  book.  

However, mandatory injunction against the present appellant to alter  

the date of birth in the service register was not granted.

Page 3 of 25

7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Munsif Court, Respondent Nos. 2-4  

filed an appeal before the Sub-Judge, Karur which was allowed by  

the Sub-Judge by its judgment and order dated 12.10.2004. Against  

the said order of the Sub-Judge, Respondent No. 1 preferred Second  

Appeal before the High Court of Madras which was registered as S.A.  

No. 1064 of 2005. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated  

15.03.2007 allowed the second appeal of the Respondent No. 1 and  

restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Review Petition  

filed by the appellant herein before the High Court also got dismissed  

vide order dated 21.07.2007. Against these orders of the High Court,  

viz., 15.03.2007 and 21.07.2007 the appellant has filed the present  

appeals,  on  which  we  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

parties.

8. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  the  

application filed by the respondent seeking for change of his date of  

birth was filed after the period of limitation contemplated under the  

Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as  

“Rules”)  which  is  five  years  and  therefore  the  decree  and  the  

judgment  passed  by  the  High  Court  affirming  the  decree  of  the  

Munsif is illegal and erroneous.   In support of the said contention,  

Page 4 of 25

the counsel relied upon the contents of the letter dated 7.10.1993  

which was submitted by respondent No. 1 in which for the first time,  

he requested for perusal of his service register contending inter alia  

that his date of birth appears to be wrongly recorded for which he  

contemplated making of an application at a later point of time.   It  

was submitted that in the said letter,  the respondent No. 1 never  

made a request for said change of date of birth.   According to him,  

the  formal  application  was  filed  by  respondent  No.  1  only  on  

11.11.1993 to the Madras High Court requesting for passing suitable  

orders directing concerned authorities to change his date of birth as  

24.11.1950 instead of 19.3.1947.

9. He further submitted that since representation for change of his date  

of  birth  was  submitted  after  five  years,  therefore,  the  same  was  

required to be rejected summarily in terms of the Rules.   So far as  

the medical report to which reference was made by the courts below,  

it was submitted that the aforesaid medical report was not supported  

by any test report and proof of having made any ossification test or  

any  supporting  document  like  test  reports  or  X-Ray  reports  and  

therefore the said medical report relied upon by respondent No. 1  

and done  at  his  instance  is  of  no  evidentiary  value  and is  of  no  

Page 5 of 25

assistance.

10.He also submitted that reliance on the horoscope itself for change of  

birth is unfounded as the said horoscope is not only a very weak  

piece of evidence but the horoscope on which reliance is placed by  

respondent No. 1 is doubtful and appears to have been created for  

the purpose of fortifying the claim for change of date of birth.

11.He  had  also  drawn  our  attention  to  the  copy  of  the  S.S.L.C.  

certificate.   By way of reference to the said S.S.L.C. certificate, it was  

submitted that originally the date of birth of respondent No. 1 was  

recorded  as  19.3.1947  which  appears  to  have  been  subsequently  

changed  in  a  different  handwriting,  changing  it  to  24.11.1950  

without  indicating  as  to  who  had  changed  the  same.    There  is  

neither the identification of the person who corrected the same nor  

any  seal  of  the  concerned  authority  permitting  and  making  such  

necessary changes.

12.The aforesaid contentions of the counsel appearing for the appellant  

were refuted by the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 who  

submitted  that  in  the  present  case,  the  respondent  No.  1  has  

submitted not only documentary evidence in support of his claim but  

Page 6 of 25

such a claim for change of his date of birth was also supported by  

medical  evidence  as  also  oral  evidence.    He  also  submitted  that  

inadmissibility  of  the  horoscope was not  a question raised in the  

special leave petition and therefore, the same cannot be gone into  

and cannot be made a case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136  

of the Constitution of India.   He submitted that the aforesaid change  

of date of birth in the S.S.L.C. certificate was made pursuant to an  

order  made  by  the  competent  authority  and  therefore,  there  is  

nothing wrong in relying on the same by the High Court as also by  

the Munsif Court who held in favour of respondent No. 1.  

13.We  have  perused  the  records  very  carefully  in  the  light  of  the  

aforesaid  submissions.    Rule  30 of  the  then  Rules  which is  the  

relevant service Rule for deciding the case provides for the procedure  

for alteration of date of birth.   Sub-Rule (a) of Rule 30 provides that  

if at the time of his appointment in service by direct recruitment, a  

candidate claims that his date of birth is different from that entered  

in the S.S.L.C. books or Matriculation Register or School Records, he  

should  make  an  application  through  the  High  Court  stating  the  

evidence on which he relies and stating that how the mistake had  

occurred.  The said application when received should be forwarded to  

Page 7 of 25

the Board of Revenue for report after investigation by an officer not  

below the rank of Deputy Collector and on receipt of the report, the  

Government should decide as to whether such alteration of date of  

birth should be permitted or the application should be rejected.   Sub  

Rule (b) of Rule 30 provides that after the person has entered the  

service by direct recruitment, an application to correct his date of  

birth  as  entered  in  the  official  records  should  normally  be  

entertained only if such application is made within five years of such  

entry into the service and that such application shall be made to the  

government through the High Court and should be disposed of in  

accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-Rule (a).  Sub-Rule  

(c)  of  Rule  30  on  the  other  hand,  provides  that  any  application  

received after five years of entry into service should be summarily  

rejected.

14.Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 put his emphasis on the  

word  “normally”  in  sub-rule  (b).  This  sub-rule  (b)  is  indisputably  

applicable  to  the  respondent.    However,  sub-rule  (c)  which  

immediately follows makes it mandatory that an application which is  

received after five years of entry into the service should be summarily  

rejected.  Therefore, the pre-requisite of filing such an application is  

Page 8 of 25

that it must be submitted within five years period and when it is so  

submitted the same should be entertained.

15.In this case, the formal application was admittedly filed after expiry  

of  the  period  of  five  years.    Sub-Rule  (a)  of  Rule  30  clearly  

emphasizes that the application seeking for change of date of birth is  

to be made to the government through the High Court.   The letter on  

which  reliance  is  placed  by  respondent  No.  1  which  is  dated  

11.11.1993 is not addressed to the government but it is addressed to  

the  Registrar  of  the  High  Court  and  in  that  application  the  

respondent No. 1 has formally sought for change of his date of birth  

stating the reason as to why such date of birth is called for.

16. In  Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Vs. Megh Raj  

Garg and Another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 482, this Court while  

dealing  with  the  issue  of  limitation  in  the  case  of  application  for  

change of date of birth, held as follows:-

“13. If the correct date of birth of Respondent 1 was   27-3-1938 and this was supported by the certificates is- sued by the schools in which he had studied before ap- pearing in the matriculation examination, then he would  have immediately after joining the service made an ap- plication to the University for change of the date of birth   recorded in the matriculation certificate and persuaded  

Page 9 of 25

the authority concerned to decide the same so as to en- able him to  move the State  Government and the High  Court for making corresponding change in the date  of   birth recorded in his service book in terms of Para 1 of   Annexure  A  to  Chapter  II  of  the  Punjab  Civil  Service  Rules, Volume I…..

15. The High Court or for that reason the State Govern- ment did not have the power, jurisdiction or authority to   entertain the representation made by Respondent 1 af- ter more than twelve years of his entering into service.   Therefore, neither of them committed any illegality by re- fusing to accept the prayer made by Respondent 1 on  the  basis  of  change  effected by  the  University  in  the   date of birth recorded in his matriculation certificate. Un- fortunately, the trial court, the lower appellate court and  the learned Single Judge of the High Court totally misdi- rected themselves in appreciating the true scope of the  embargo contained in the relevant rule against the en- tertaining of an application for correction of the date of   birth after two years of the government servant's entry  into service and all  of  them committed  grave  error  by  nullifying the decision taken by the State Government in  consultation with the High Court not to accept the repre- sentation made by Respondent 1 for change of the date   of birth recorded in his service book.

17. This Court has time and again  cautioned the civil   courts and the High Courts against entertaining and ac- cepting the claim made by the employees long after en- tering into service for correction of the recorded date of  birth. In Union of India v. Harnam Singh this Court con- sidered the question whether the employer was justified  in declining the respondent's request for correction of the   date of birth made after thirty-five years of his induction  into the service and whether the Central Administrative   Tribunal was justified in allowing the original applica-

Page 10 of 25

tion filed by him. While reversing the order of the Tri- bunal, this Court observed: (SCC pp. 167-68, para 7)

7.  A  government  servant,  after  entry  into  ser- vice, acquires the right to continue in service till the   age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise   of its  powers regulating conditions of service, un- less  the  services  are  dispensed  with  on  other  grounds contained in the relevant service rules af- ter following the procedure prescribed therein. The  date of birth entered in the service records of a civil   servant is, thus of utmost importance for the rea- son that the right to continue in service stands de- cided by its entry in the service record. A govern- ment servant who has declared his age at the ini- tial stage of the employment is, of course, not pre- cluded from making a request later on for correct- ing his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim cor- rection of his date of birth, if he is in possession of   irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as dif- ferent  from the  one  earlier  recorded  and  even  if   there is no period of limitation prescribed for seek- ing correction of date of birth, the government ser- vant must do so without any unreasonable delay.  In the absence of any provision in the rules for cor- rection of date of birth, the general principle of re- fusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is  generally applied by the courts and tribunals. It is  nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a  time-limit, in the service rules, after which no appli- cation  for correction  of  date  of  birth  of  a govern- ment  servant  can  be  entertained.  A  government  servant who makes an application for correction of   date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore,  cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of   his date of birth even if he has good evidence to es- tablish that the recorded date of birth is clearly er- roneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly   but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the  courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those  who sleep over their rights and allow the period of   

Page 11 of 25

limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth   as recorded would determine his date of superan- nuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to   continue in service on the basis of his actual age.”

(emphasis supplied)

Again in Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC  

162, this Court said about limitation in paragraph 7 in the following  

manner:-

“7.  ……………………………………  It  is  nonetheless   competent for the Government to fix a time-limit, in the  service rules, after which no application for correction of   date  of  birth  of  a  Government  servant  can  be  entertained.  A  Government  servant  who  makes  an  application  for  correction  of  date  of  birth  beyond  the  time,  so fixed, therefore,  cannot claim,  as  a matter  of   right,  the correction of his date of birth even if  he has  good  evidence  to  establish  that  the  recorded  date  of   birth  is  clearly  erroneous.  The  law  of  limitation  may  operate  harshly  but  it  has  to  be  applied  with  all  its   rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid   of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period  of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth   as  recorded  would  determine  his  date  of   superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right   to continue in service on the basis of his actual age. …… ……………………………………….”

17.Therefore,  strictly  speaking  the  Respondent  while  filing  the  said  

application did not follow the mandate and requisites of Rule 30 of  

the  Rules.  The  application  was  not  addressed  to  the  State  

Page 12 of 25

Government nor the procedure prescribed in sub-Rule (a), which is  

applicable  even  for  a  case  where  sub-Rule  (b)  applies  was  not  

adhered  to  nor  the  said  application  was  filed  within  five  years.  

Therefore, in terms of sub-rule (c) it was to be summarily rejected.  

But,  instead of  deciding the  present  appeal  only on the  aforesaid  

ground, we proceed to decide on the other issues also which were  

urged before us and which in our considered opinion call  for our  

decision.

18. So  far  as  the  contention  with  regard  to  change  made  in  the  

S.S.L.C. Certificate is concerned, we have perused the said certificate.  

In the said certificate, it was clearly mentioned that his date of birth  

was  19.3.1947  which  was  entered  into  by  the  headmaster  of  the  

concerned  school.  It  also  contained  the  declaration  of  the  father  of  

respondent No. 1.   The signature of the father of the respondent No. 1  

is clearly visible on the declaration and the signature is distinct, bold  

and beautifully written and therefore appears to be that of a man of  

letters. The date recorded therein came to be changed to 24.11.1950 by  

someone by putting his initials, but the same is also without any date  

and no seal also appears to have been appended thereto in support of  

such change.

Page 13 of 25

19.  Sub-Section(1) of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and  

Deaths Act, 1969 provides that any birth or death of which information  

is given to the Registrar after expiry of the period specified therein, but  

within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of  

such late fee as may be prescribed.  Sub-section (2) thereof provides  

that any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the  

Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be  

registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority  

and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit  

made  before  a  notary  public  or  any  other  officer  authorized  in  this  

behalf by the State Government.   Sub-section (3) of Section 30 which is  

relevant for our purpose also provides that any birth or death which  

has  not  been  registered  within  one  year  of  its  occurrence,  shall  be  

registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a  

Presidency  Magistrate  after  verifying  the  correctness  of  the  birth  or  

death and on payment of the prescribed fee.   There is nothing in the  

evidence to indicate that the pre-conditions and the requisites of sub-

section (3) of Section 30 were followed in the instant case by respondent  

No.  1.   No  order  of  the  Magistrate  of  the  first  class  or  Presidency  

Magistrate  is  placed  on record  to  prove  and establish  that  such an  

Page 14 of 25

order was passed after verifying the correctness of the birth nor any  

other connected document thereof is placed on record and therefore,  

the change apparently was not made in terms of the aforesaid mandate  

of Section 13 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

20. Reliance is placed by respondent No. 1 on the evidence of the  

doctor and the medical  certificate.    PW-2 is Shri  Newmen who has  

proved the medical certificate stating that he was the Chairman of the  

Medical  Board  and  that  the  medical  certificate  was  given  to  the  

plaintiff/respondent No.  1 by the Medical  Board which is Ext.  A-12.  

He stated in his examination-in-chief that he was the Chief of the Board  

formed  for  issuance  of  Ex.  A-12,  which  is  relied  upon  by  

plaintiff/respondent  No.  1 and one doctor in Pathology,  one General  

Medical Expert and one Radiologist were in that team.   He has also  

stated  that  the  said  medical  team  generally  examined  

plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and examined him radiologically and came to  

the conclusion as per Ex.  A-12.    He also stated  that what kind of  

examination was conducted on plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is noted in  

the report of the Medical Board.

21. He  has  specifically  stated  in  his  deposition  that  he  has  not  

Page 15 of 25

produced  the  test  report  or  its  copy  before  the  Court  showing  

supporting  documents  and  the  tests  based  on  which  they  had  

determined the age of respondent No. 1/plaintiff. It must be indicated  

at this stage that respondent No. 1/plaintiff himself went to the Medical  

Board  and  got  himself  examined  and  obtained  the  aforesaid  report  

which was brought in evidence.  At the top of the aforesaid medical  

certificate, it is written as “Age Proof Certificate”.   The said age proof  

certificate  is  signed  by  the  Chairman  and  also  signed  by  two  other  

members.    What  is  recorded  in  the  said  age  proof  certificate  is  

extracted below:-

“This  is  to  certify  that  MEDICAL  BOARD  No.   Office  at  TIRUPUR  have  carefully  examined  THIRU  MANICKAM,  S/o  Thiru  V.  Muthusamy,  Subordinate   Judge, Udumalpet an applicant for Age Certificate.   His  identification marks are;

1. A Black mole on the right collar bone.

2.   A Black mole on the right hand.

According to  my physical  examination  and  personal of  his appearance of the individual, he appears to be about  48  years  (Forty  Eight  years  )  according  to  his  own  statement”  

22. In our considered opinion, the said medical certificate is very  

vague and unreliable.   Whether or not any radiological examination  

was done and if so, of what nature, and also whether any ossification  

Page 16 of 25

test was done or not is not reflected from the said report.   It is only  

stated in the certificate that on the basis of physical examination and  

from his appearance and on the basis of his own statement the age of  

the respondent was determined as 48 years.  

23. This Court in the case of  Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath v.  

State of Assam reported in (2001) 5 SCC 714 while dealing with the  

reliability of the ossification test held as follows: -

“21. ………………………  An X-ray  ossification  test  may  provide  a  surer  basis  for  determining  the  age  of  an  individual than the opinion of a medical expert but it can  by no means be so infallible and accurate  a test as to  indicate the exact date of birth of the person concerned.   Too much of reliance cannot be placed upon textbooks, on  medical jurisprudence and toxicology while  determining  the age of an accused. In this vast country with varied  latitudes, heights, environment, vegetation and nutrition,   the height and weight cannot be expected to be uniform.”

24. That age proof certificate appears to have been got prepared for  

the purpose of adducing evidence at the time of hearing of the suit and  

not before.   The document is also found to unrealistic and unreliable.  

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very difficult  

to place any reliance on the authenticity and validity of the said age  

proof certificate.  Respondent No. 1 also relied upon the evidence of two  

Page 17 of 25

persons in support of his contention that he was born in the year 1950.  

Let us now proceed to consider the strength of such oral evidence.

25. PW-3, Murugan who is the elder brother of respondent No. 1  

was examined.   He had stated that respondent No. 1/plaintiff was born  

in the year 1950.   He also stated that in their family except respondent  

No. 1, nobody studied in school or college which is found to be incorrect  

because at a later stage he himself had stated that he had studied upto  

2nd or 3rd standard.

26. He also stated that generally when the child is born, the same is  

registered with the Village Munsif and that he did not know whether his  

father had informed the village Munsif about the birth of respondent  

No. 1.    He had stated that while his brother was at the age of about  

three or four years, to get him admitted in the school, his father had  

given innocently his age as about 7 or 8 years and got respondent No. 1  

admitted in the school.   

27. The only other witness who was examined to prove the age of  

respondent  No.  1  was  Chettiappa  Velar,  PW-4  who had  stated  that  

respondent  No.  1  was  born  in  the  year  1950  and  that  he  also  got  

married in the year 1950.   However, in the cross-examination, he could  

Page 18 of 25

not say as to what is the date and month in which the respondent No. 1  

was born.   He also could not give the date and month of his marriage  

as well.

28. The aforesaid evidence adduced by respondent No. 1 in support  

of  his  case  is  most  unreliable.    Change  of  date  of  birth  is  a  very  

important responsibility to be discharged for there is a general tendency  

amongst the employees to lower their age and change their date of birth  

to suit their career and to lengthen their service career. In paragraph 6  

of  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  State  of  U.P.  v.  Shiv  Narayan  

Upadhyaya reported in (2005) 6 SCC 49, this Court held thus: -

“6. …………………………………..But,  of  late  a  trend  can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of   their  retirement  waking  up  from their  supine  slumber  raise  a  dispute  about  their  service  records,  by  either  invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article   226 of the Constitution or by filing applications before the   Administrative  Tribunals concerned, or even filing suits   for adjudication as to whether the date of birth recorded  is correct or not.”

Again in Para 9 of the said judgment it was stated thus: -

“9. …………………………………………….As such, unless a  clear case on the basis of clinching materials which can  be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the   respondent  and  that  too  within  a  reasonable  time  as  

Page 19 of 25

provided in the rules governing the service, the court or   the  Tribunal  should  not  issue  a  direction  or  make  a  declaration on the basis of materials which make such  claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued  or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be   fully satisfied that  there has been real injustice  to  the   person concerned and his claim for correction of date of   birth has been made in accordance with  the procedure  prescribed,  and  within  the  time  fixed  by  any  rule  or   order……………………………………………..”

29. There must be strong, cogent and reliable evidence in support of  

the contention that the date of birth entered in the service records or in  

the S.S.L.C. certificate was wrongly entered by a mistake.    

30. In  State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh reported in  (2005) 3  

SCC 702, this Court had occasion to deal with the evidentiary value of  

horoscope as proof of date of birth.   It was held in that decision that a  

horoscope is very weak piece of material to prove age of a person and in  

most of the cases the maker may not be available to prove that it was  

prepared immediately after the birth and therefore a heavy onus lies on  

the person who wants to press it  to prove its  authenticity.    It  was  

further held that in fact a horoscope to be treated as evidence in terms  

of Section 32(5) of Evidence Act, 1872, it must be proved to have been  

made  by  a  person  having  special  means  of  knowledge  as  regards  

authenticity of the date, time etc. mentioned therein.   In that context  

Page 20 of 25

horoscopes have been held to be inadmissible in proof of age.

31. Keeping the aforesaid principles laid down by this Court in our  

mind, we proceed to examine the evidentiary value of the horoscope  

which is relied upon by the respondent No. 1 in support of his claim.  

The  aforesaid  horoscope  is  the  basis  and  foundation  on  which  the  

respondent No. 1 primarily relies upon.  The said horoscope, therefore,  

must  be  shown  to  have  been  made  by  a  person  who  has  special  

knowledge of making such a horoscope.  The creator of the horoscope  

or the writer is not examined in the present case as he was stated to be  

dead.  None of  his  family  members or  any of  his  acquaintances was  

examined to prove handwriting. In order to come to a definite decision  

about  the authenticity  and evidentiary  value or  the reliability  of  the  

document, we have ourselves closely and very minutely considered the  

horoscope.

32. Having gone through the same, we find that although it is stated  

to  be  a  notebook  containing  the  horoscopes  of  all  the  sons  and  

daughters of the father of Respondent No. 1 made at different points of  

time, but a bare perusal of the document would indicate that all the  

horoscopes are made at one point of time by the same person at one go  

Page 21 of 25

and not on different dates as sought to be claimed.   The book allegedly  

containing horoscopes of all persons was shown to be maintained from  

1939 to 1953. For all the horoscopes written between a period of 14  

years the same ink was used by the same writer. First horoscope was of  

1939 and written in that year in a note book distributed and published  

from Trichy-2.  At  that  time,  i.e.,  before  independence  there  was  no  

postal zone. As per materials available the Indian Postal Service which  

was constituted after Independence has introduced a PIN code system  

“the Postal Index Number Code System” in India on 15.08.1972. The  

objective of introduction of the said Code was to simplify the sorting of  

mails and thus speed up their transmission and delivery.  Since this  

system came in 1972 the note book has to be of a period after 1972  

and, therefore, the contention that immediately on birth of a member in  

the family,  the date of birth was entered in the note book has been  

falsified.  Therefore,  it  reinforces  the  findings  of  this  Court  that  the  

Respondent  No.  1  has  incorrectly  stated  the  year  of  preparation  of  

horoscope.  It  could  be  deduced  from  the  materials  on  record  that  

somewhere around 1993 this document was got prepared. If  such a  

notebook was available, nothing is stated as to why the same could not  

have been looked at and produced at the time of his admission in the  

Page 22 of 25

school or at the time of his admission in the college or even at the time  

when he was entering into the service.   From the signature appearing  

on the school leaving certificate, we find that the father of respondent  

No. 1 was a man of letters and there was no reason as to why he would  

subscribe  to  a  wrong  age  as  alleged  and  that  too  in  his  S.S.L.C.  

Certificate.    

33. The aforesaid S.S.L.C. certificate with the date 19.3.1947 was  

produced by him at the time of his entry into the college as also in entry  

into the service knowing fully well that, that particular age is  factually  

recorded.  The said notebook allegedly contained the horoscopes of all  

the persons prepared at different points of time and therefore the said  

date of birth was known to the family and therefore, if it existed at that  

point of time, it would have definitely been placed at the time of his  

entry to the school or admission in the college or the same would have  

been relied upon at least at the time of his entry to the service.   We  

reiterate the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid  

decision that horoscope is a very weak piece of material to prove age of  

a person and that heavy onus lies on a person who wants to press it  

into service to prove its authenticity.    

Page 23 of 25

34. We are of a firm opinion that respondent No. 1 has failed to  

discharge  his  onus  in  proving  the  authenticity  of  the  aforesaid  

horoscope on which reliance is placed.   Since the aforesaid horoscope  

is a primary document on which reliance is placed for change of his  

date  of  birth,  therefore,  the same is  required to be looked into very  

carefully and minutely so as to ascertain the genuineness of the claim  

of  respondent  No.  1.    There  cannot  be  any  bar  to  examine  the  

authenticity  and  evidentiary  value  of  the  same  while  exercising  the  

power under Article  136 of the Constitution of India.   Power under  

Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of  India  permit  such  a  scrutiny  

particularly when it relates to the change of date of birth of a person  

who seeks to get an advantage to his benefit to which he otherwise may  

not be entitled to.  In the decision of this Court in  Ramakant Rai v.  

Madan Rai and Others reported in (2003) 12 SCC 395, the ambit and  

scope of power of Article 136 is stated thus: -

“14.  ……………………….In express terms, Article 136 does  not  confer  a  right  of  appeal  on  a  party  as  such  but  it   confers  a  wide  discretionary  power  on  this  Court  to   interfere in suitable cases. The discretionary dimension is   considerable  but  that  relates  to  the  power  of  the  Court.  Article 136 is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary power; it   is extraordinary in its amplitude, its limits, when it chases  injustice,  is  the  sky  itself.  This  Court  functionally  fulfils  itself  by reaching out to injustice  wherever it  is  and this   

Page 24 of 25

power is largely derived in the common run of cases from  Article 136. ………………………………”

The difference of age in the present case is also considerable, as it is 3  

years, 8 months and 5 days.

35. When we look into the dispute and the matter from any angle,  

we find that the judgment and the decree passed by the Munsif Court  

which is affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to  

be set aside.  We hereby set aside the judgment and decree of the High  

Court  and hold  that  respondent  No.  1  has failed  to  prove  that  any  

change of date of birth is called for in the present case.  The appeals are  

allowed and the suit stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their  

own costs.

          ............................................J                                          [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

............................................J                   [Anil R. Dave]

New Delhi August 17, 2011

Page 25 of 25