High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-28Writ petition allowed

Aadharsh C. s/o Ajith Kumar P. v. Superintendent, Medical College, Kozhikode; Health Inspector and Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kozhikode Corporation; Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths (Director of Panchayaths), Revenue Board Buildings, Thiruvananthapuram

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 34363 of 2016 (U)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-11-28
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The date of birth shall be corrected in the Register of Births and Deaths from 31.08.1993 to 30.08.1993. The petitioner shall produce the original Ext.P8 birth certificate and the declarations from two credible persons if not already produced. The respondent shall effect the correction and issue a corrected birth certificate within one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, with late fees as provided under Rule 9. No Costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aadharsh C., s/o Ajith Kumar P.

Respondents

Superintendent, Medical College, Kozhikode; Health Inspector and Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kozhikode Corporation; Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths (Director of Panchayath), Revenue Board Buildings, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V.C. James
• Sri. Sebastian Joseph (Kurisummoottil)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Renil Anto, Senior Government Pleader
• Sri. K.D. Babu, S.C

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Aadharsh C., seeks correction of the date of birth maintained in Ext.P8 Birth Certificate issued by the third respondent. The certificate records the birth as 31 August 1993, but the petitioner contends that the true date is 30 August 1993, with birth at 11:50 p.m. on that day, and that the hospital intimated the date as 31 August 1993 the following day. The petitioner relies on consistent declarations in school records, the SSLC certificate, passport, and other documents indicating 30 August 1993 as the birth date, supported by an affidavit from the petitioner’s mother and declarations from two credible persons as required by Rule 11 of the Kerala Births & Deaths Rules. The respondent’s counsel argues that the entry in the Births and Deaths Register was based on hospital intimation and cites Registrar (Births and Deaths) v. Jayakrishnan (2003) to suggest that later documents (SSLC/passport) cannot overturn the register entry. The judgment also references Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob and Others (2011) (DB) to emphasize that corrections are permissible under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and Rule 11, upon credible evidence. The court finds the hospital’s 31 August 1993 entry to be a bona fide mistake in the circumstances and directs correction to 30 August 1993, with production of originals, payment of late fees, and issuance of a corrected certificate within one month."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 15, Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969Rule 11(2), Kerala Registration of Births & Deaths Rules, 1999Rule 9, Kerala Registration of Births & Deaths Rules, 1999

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bona fide mistake

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants contended that the true date of birth is 30.08.1993, supported by Ext.P8, school records, SSLC, passport, and affidavits/declarations as required under Rule 11. They argued that the hospital’s notification of 31.08.1993 was a bona fide mistake, and that correction is warranted under Section 15 and Rule 11, following the principle laid down in Thomas Jacob (DB).

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents maintained the register entry of 31.08.1993 based on hospital intimation and relied on case law (Jayakrishnan) to argue that later documents cannot overturn a register entry; they argued for adherence to the proper procedural route and acknowledged the need for credible declarations under Rule 11.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Registrar (Births and Deaths) v. Jayakrishnan	2003 (2) KLT 701	Mentioned Only	Cited to discuss that later documents (SSLC/passport) cannot necessarily disprove the register entry; the present case does not adopt this proposition as controlling.
Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob and others	2011 (3) KHC 389 (DB)	Positive	Division Bench in Thomas Jacob approved correction under Section 15 and Rule 11 with credible evidence; the present judgment follows that approach to allow correction to 30.08.1993.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Aadharsh C. s/o Ajith Kumar P. v. Superintendent, Medical College, Kozhikode; Health Inspector and Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kozhikode Corporation; Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths (Director of Panchayaths), Revenue Board Buildings, Thiruvananthapuram and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 34363 of 2016 (U)** **------------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) :** **--------------------------** **ADHARSH C., S/O.AJITH KUMAR P., SREE SAILAM, GURUVAYURAPPAN COLLEGE, CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN 673 014.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.C.JAMES** **SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL)** **RESPONDENT(S) :** **----------------------------** **1. SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE- 673 001.** **2. HEALTH INSPECTOR AND REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION- 673 001.** **3. CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS), REVENUE BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.** **R1 & R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RENIL ANTO R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU, S.C** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **WP(C).No. 34363 of 2016 (U)** ## **------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** - **EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE DATED 20.05.2011.** - **EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 27TH JULY, 2011 ISSUED FROM SAMUNDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES.** - **EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED BY THE BANK SBT.** - **EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 09.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF MANKAVU BRANCH.** - **EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 07.06.2012 ISSUED FROM THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE.** - **EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF INDIAN MARITIME UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTER KOZHIKODE CORPORATION.** - **EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT OF KOZHIKODE MEDICAL COLLEGE.** - **EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DATED 22.07.2016 SWORN BY PETITIONER'S MOTHER DULY ATTESTED BY SRI.MUJEEBURAHIMAN, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NOTARY BEFORE MEDICAL COLLEGE SUPERINTENDENT, KOZHIKODE.** - **EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER DATED 08.09.2016 FORWARDED BY THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT OF KOZHIKODE MEDICAL COLLEGE TO THE REGISTRAR, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION.** - **EXHIBIT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 09.09.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION.** - **EXHIBIT-P13: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY A.SETHULAKSHMI AMMA.** - **EXHIBIT-P14: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY SRI.N.JAYAPRAKASAN NAIR.** **EXHIBIT-P15: TRUE COPY OF THE HOROSCOPE OF THE PETITIONER.** ## **WP(C).No. 34363 of 2016 (U)** **------------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P16: TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE DATED 29.08.2016 ISSUED FROM THE MALAYALA MANORAMMA OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 34363 of 2016 (U) -----------------------------------------Dated: 28[th] November, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner seeks for correction of date of birth in the Birth Certificate maintained by the 3[rd] respondent. 2. The petitioner's date of birth is shown as 31.08.1993 in Ext.P8 Birth Certificate, as issued by the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioner submits that the date of birth is actually 30.08.1993. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner was born at 11.50 p.m. on 30.08.1993 and the birth was intimated on the next day before the 3[rd] respondent. The relative who informed the birth, by mistake, informed the date as 31.08.1993. ## **W.P.(C) No. 34363/2016** **-2-** 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, however, submits that it is not a case of the relative having intimated the date of birth, but, the hospital itself having intimated the date of birth as 31.08.1993, which was recorded in the Register of Births and Deaths. The learned Counsel also relies on **Registrar (Births and Deaths) v. Jayakrishnan - 2003 (2) KLT 701** to contend that the date of birth as declared in the S.S.L.C. or passport, which is a subsequent event, cannot disprove correctness of date of birth recorded in the Register of Births and Deaths . 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, on facts, there has been a decision otherwise in **of Births and Deaths v. Secretary, Registrar Thomas Jacob and others - 2011 (3) KHC 389 (DB)** . ## **W.P.(C) No. 34363/2016** **-3-** 5. In **Thomas Jacob** (supra) the Division Bench noticed the provisions, which permitted correction of date of birth in the Registers, being Section 15 of the Registration of Birth & Death Act, 1969 ('Act' for short) and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births & Deaths Rules, 1999 ('Rules' for short). Section 15 provides for correction or cancellation of entry in the Register of Births and Deaths. The requirement is only that the correction sought for, be proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar, subject to such Rules as made by the State Government. Rule 11(2) provides that on assertion of any entry in the Register of Births and Deaths to be erroneous, the Registrar can correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section 15 upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the ## **W.P.(C) No. 34363/2016** **-4-** facts of the case. The Division bench relied on a Baptism Certificate, the SSLC Book, the Passport issued to the petitioner and the declaration made by the father and mother in that case, to come to a conclusion that the correction could then be made by the Registrar. 6. In the present case it is seen that the parents of the petitioner had declared the date of birth of the petitioner consistently in all the records in the school and otherwise as 30.08.1993. The petitioner had also filed an affidavit of his mother and also of two respected persons of the locality, as is provided in Rule 11 of the Rules. It is also pertinent that by Ext.P11 the Superintendent of Government Medical College, Kozhikode, has, on verification of records, again communicated to the 3[rd] respondent that the birth of the petitioner was at 11.50 p.m. on 30.08.1993. Hence, the communication of the hospital, as to the birth ## **W.P.(C) No. 34363/2016** **-5-** having occurred on 31.08.1993, can only be considered to be a bona fide mistake. 7. In such circumstance, it is only appropriate that the date of birth of the petitioner be corrected in the Register of Births and Deaths as 30.08.1993. The petitioner shall produce the original of Ext.P8, the birth certificate issued, as also the originals of the declarations obtained from two respectable persons before the Registrar, if not already produced. The respondent shall then correct the registration and issue a certificate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall pay the late fees as provided in Rule 9. It is made clear that the direction herein is on the basis of the facts disclosed herein as was done by the Division Bench in **Thomas Jacob** (supra). ## **W.P.(C) No. 34363/2016** **-6-** The writ petition is allowed. No Costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 29/11/16