Kerala High Court
Anna Jacob vs The Chief Registrar Of Births And ... on 26 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.27698 OF 2020(J)
PETITIONER/S:
ANNA JACOB
AGED 80 YEARS
PLAPARAMBIL LAVANYA,
VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MAMACHAN
P.G., AMBISSERIL ASHIS,
PALLIMUKKU, KUNDARA P.O.,
KOLLAM
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS,
PUBLIC OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 033
2 THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS,
DEATHS AND MARRIAGE (COMMON),
THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689 101
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP K.P HARISH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-
2021, THE COURT ON 26-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).27698/2020
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims that, she was born on 18.05.1967 at her
mother's house at Thiruvalla. The petitioner was issued Ext.P6 Birth
Certificate which showed her date of birth as 19.05.1967. Claiming that
her actual date of birth was 18.05.1967, petitioner filed Ext.P7
representation before the second respondent. Statement of petitioner's
mother was recorded before the second respondent in support of her
case. Her statement is marked as Ext.P10. She asserted that the
petitioner was born at the house on 18.05.1967. Since the mother
developed some complications, the mother and child were taken in the
same night to Pushpagiri hospital, where they were given treatment. It
was asserted that, by mistake, hospital authorities have recorded her
date of birth as 19.05.1967. Rejecting Ext.P7 representation, Ext.P8
order was issued affirming that, birth certificate was issued on the basis
of hospital records maintained, which indicated her date of birth as
19.05.1967, at Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla.
2. Challenging the above and with a prayer to quash Exts.P6
and P8, petitioner has approached this Court. Second respondent has
filed a detailed counter traversing various allegations in the original
petition.
W.P(C).27698/2020
3. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Senior Government Pleader for the first respondent and the
learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.
4. Learned senior counsel on the basis of Exts.P2 to P5
contended that the birth of the petitioner was at the house of the
petitioner's mother and that the date of birth was 18.05.1967. It was
contended that, Pushpagiri hospital was a small hospital at that point of
time and they did not have any statutory record, since the Registration
of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 came into force only in 1970 and before
that, there was no statutory obligation to maintain such records.
Probably, the hospital might have made some scribblings in the note
books maintained by the staff, which cannot be considered as an
authoritative document. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the
records maintained by such hospital. It was further contended that, in
the baptism certificate which is most authentic and first available
record, date of birth was recorded as 18.05.1967, which was carried
forward in all the subsequent documents. According to the learned
counsel, by the very same impugned order, the name of the petitioner
was ordered to be corrected which showed that the entries in Birth
certificate was not infallible. By, applying the same yardstick, the
correction of date of birth also ought to have been allowed. Learned
counsel for the second respondent, relying on the detailed counter
W.P(C).27698/2020
affidavit, contended that, it was on the basis of reliable records that the
second respondent confirmed the date of birth as 19.05.1967. It was
contended that the records maintained by the hospital was the first and
the most authoritative record available, that it was kept in the regular
course of business and was produced from the proper custody. Hence,
the second respondent was perfectly justified in relying on it. The
statement of the mother of the petitioner was found to be not reliable, in
the light of the records maintained by the hospital. Hence the learned
counsel for the petitioner sought for rejection of the writ petition;
5. It seems that the second respondent relied on the hospital
records. Ext.P8 order shows that the petitioner sought for correction of
two alleged errors, firstly, the date of birth and the other, place of birth.
She relied on the oral testimony of her mother as well as Exts.P2 to P5
records to convince that, her date of birth was on 18.05.1967. Second
respondent relied on hospital records which showed the birth as
19.05.1967. Though the mother had claimed that the elder daughter
was also born in her house on a particular day, the hospital records
revealed that, elder daughter was also born on the same day mentioned
by the mother but, at the hospital. On the basis of this, the authority
concluded that the version spoken by the mother was not believable.
6. The petitioner is now relying on two affidavits given by the
neighbours as Exts.P10 and P11. Though the learned senior counsel
W.P(C).27698/2020
vehemently attacked the hospital records, prima facie, it appears, to be
records kept in the ordinary course of business of the hospital and was
produced from the proper custody and in the light of the nature of
above records. Strong contra evidence is required to displace the above
entries.
7. However, it seems that, the authority below referred to rely
on the version of mother on the only ground regarding the place of
birth, though the mother claimed that it was in the house, hospital
records showed that it was in the hospital. Consequently, the authority
arrived at a conclusion that the version of mother was not convincing.
It seems that, apart from this, no other reason is stated as to why the
version of the mother is to be discarded. Further, evidenciary value of
other documents relied on by the petitioner has not been considered.
Two more materials have come on record now, in the form of Exts.P10
and P11. Having considered this and also considering the other
document relied on by the petitioner, I am inclined to give one more
opportunity to the petitioner herein to bring in evidence to displace the
material on record in the form of hospital records. Having considered
this, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order for the limited
purpose of enabling the petitioner to bring in more evidence, if she so
desires. This is in tune with the decision of this Court in Secretary
Registrar of Birth and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob ((2011)3 KHC
W.P(C).27698/2020
389).
In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P8 is set aside and
the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 afresh, after giving
a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to adduce more evidence, if
so desires and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to
bring in more materials and thereafter to decide in accordance with law.
The above process shall be completed by the second respondent within
two months from the date of service of a copy of this judgment.
Writ Petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Sbna JUDGE
W.P(C).27698/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF BAPTISM ISSUED BY
THE ST.GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, CHENNITHALA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AGE, NATIONALITY,
DOMICILE ETC, ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, THANE DATED 13.06.1984
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PASS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
MAHARASTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER
SECONDARY EDUCATION DATED 27.09.1982
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE ISSUED BY THE
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DATED
2.12.1994
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF
THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM INDIAN CONSULATE, UNIT
ARAB EMIRATES, VALID FROM 9.3.2016 TO 8.3.2026
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.08.2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.09.2020
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H4-13451/19 DATED
29.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2020 IN WPC
NO.24030/2020
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS
MOTHER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.01.2020
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY JOHN.K.THOMAS
DATED 8.12.2020
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY SARAMMA
VARGHESE DATED 8.12.2020
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.1.2017 IN WPC
NO.18135/2020
