- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellant filed the suit for declaration with respect to his date of birth. According to the plaintiff, his date of birth is 18.11.1925, whereas in the service record, his date of birth has been entered as 6.2.1924. The plaintiff received one letter from the Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank in the month of February, 1983 stating therein that since his age of superannuation is coming in the month of February, 1984, therefore, he shall retire in the month of February, 1984. Upon this, plaintiff filed present suit for declaration on 30.1.1984, which appears to be a month's before the time of his retirement. The respondent-Bank contested the suit and submitted that the plaintiff himself entered his date of birth as 6.2.1924 which continued in the service record in the knowledge of the plaintiff. He completed about 36 years of service without making any objection about wrong recording of his date of birth.
(3.) Both the parties led their evidence. The plaintiff produced documentary evidence. The plaintiff produced documentary evidence (Ex.1) which is said to be one copy of the gazette containing the result of the matric examination of the Punjab University wherein according to the plaintiff, his date of birth has been shown as 18.11.1925. He also produced record of the High School, Abohar wherein according to the plaintiff, his date of birth has been recored in the school as 18.11.1925. Ex.3 is also a document issued by the same school and same is the position of Ex.4. The trial court found that in all these documents produced by the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to establish any relation with the plaintiff. The alleged copy of the gazette was found to be incomplete and further in the record of the school, there was entry in the name of Prabhu Dayal at two places, one having date of birth as 5.9.1925 and another having date of birth as 18.11.1925. The plaintiff failed to prove which of the entry is related to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also failed to produce any certificate obtained from the Education Board. In totality of the circumstances, the trial court held that these documents are not coming from proper custody as well as they cannot be relied upon because of the fact that sufficient particulars are not mentioned in the documents itself so as to connect these documents with the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 21.8.1985. The appeal was also dismissed by the first appellate court by impugned judgment and decree dated 11.3.1987. Hence this second appeal.;