Judgment : Second defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India in O.S.No.376 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Devakottai, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The first respondent herein/ plaintiff in that suit filed the same for declaration to declare that his date of birth is 30.10.1928 and con-sequential mandatory direction to make necessary correction in the Service Book of the second defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit and in the appeal at the instance of the plaintiff, the lower appellate court decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence, the second appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder: According to the plaintiff, he is the fourth son of his parents PS.V.R. Somasundaram Chettiar and Meenakshi Achi. On the date of the suit he has completed 52 years. His correct date of birth as per horoscope is 30.10.1928. However, while joining the school his neighbour, who took him to the school, has informed that his date of birth is 16. 1925 and the same has been wrongly recorded by the school authorities. Even before completion of 6th Form, he stopped his education and joined Midland Insurance Company in the month of November, 1955. The said company was taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the second defendant. Thereafter, he is the employee of the second defendant Corporation. When the second defendant sent a communication regarding confirmation of date of birth, he submitted his Transfer Certificate as well as horoscope. On the basis of the Transfer Certificate issued by the school authorities, the second defendant entered the same in the Service Register. If the date of birth, found in the Transfer Certificate is accepted, the plaintiff has to forego 3 years 3 months and 15 days of service. Hence, he sent a notice under Sec.80, C.P.C. to the Government. On 23. 1979 the Government sent a reply denying the plaintiffs claim. Hence he has filed the present suit. 3. Second defendant filed a written statement wherein it is contended that the suit is not maintainable. The second defendant Corporation was formed as per the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and in pursuance of the delegation of powers the Chairman has instructions in the year 1970 with regard to the date of birth of the personnel working in the second defendant. The second defendant Corporation was formed as per the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and in pursuance of the delegation of powers the Chairman has instructions in the year 1970 with regard to the date of birth of the personnel working in the second defendant. It is further stated that while the plaintiff initially joined Midland Insurance Company he has mentioned his age as 26 and he has not noted his date of birth as 30.10.1928 as claimed in the suit. The entry in the horoscope has no evidentiary value, more particularly, when the Transfer Certificate relating to the plaintiff is available. Further, after noting the date of birth as 16. 1925 on the basis of Transfer Certificate, the same was communicated to the plaintiff and he has acknowledged the same. Till the date of filing of the appeal even though there is a provision in the instruction given to the staff of the Life Insurance Corporation for filing appeal, he has not chosen to file the same. Hence, there is no merit in the present suit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 and his uncle was examined as P.W.2, apart from marking Exs.A-1 to A-8 in support of his claim. On the other hand, no one was examined on the side of the defendants, however Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked in support of their claim. The learned District Munsif, Devakottai, in the light of the above pleadings, after framing necessary issues and in the light of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit with costs. 5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit the plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No.66 of 1983 before the Sub Court, Devakottai. The learned Subordinate Judge after framing necessary points for consideration, accepted the case of the plaintiff, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the 2nd defendant has filed the present second appeal before this Court. While entertaining the second appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: .(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation having regard to the statutory order passed by the appellant as early as on 23. 1970 and received by the 1st respondent on 23. 1970? While entertaining the second appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: .(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation having regard to the statutory order passed by the appellant as early as on 23. 1970 and received by the 1st respondent on 23. 1970? .(2) Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to determine the date of birth of an employee, ignoring the provisions contained in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (verification of Date of birth of Employees) Instructions, 1970? .(3) Whether the horoscope Exs.A-3 and A-4 are admissible in evidence and if so, what is the evidentiary value there of? .(4) In the face of the official Transfer Certificate Ex. A-7, Whether the lower appellate court is correct in looking for other evidence and relying upon the same wholly to determine the date of birth? 7. I have heard Mr.M.S.Umapathy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan for first respondent and Mr.B.Mani, learned Government Advocate for 2nd respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant after taking me through the pleadings of both parties and oral and documentary evidence, submitted that as per the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Verification of Date of Birth of Employees) Instructions, 1970, which have statutory force, the plaintiff ought to have filed ap-peal against the entry made in the Service Register if he has any grievance. He further submitted that since he was given an opportunity and on the basis of the documents produced, his date of birth has been entered in the Service Register and the same has been communicated and acknowledged as per Ex.B-4, the suit filed in the year 1981 after 11 years is hopelessly barred by limitation. He further submitted the decision of the lower appellate court relying the date mentioned in the horoscope and in the absence of any other acceptable material cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that inasmuch as the lower appellate court on appreciation of acceptable evidence, came to the conclusion that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 30.10.1928 and accordingly granted decree in favour of the plaintiff; hence the said factual finding cannot be interfered in this second appeal. He also submitted that the civil court has jurisdiction to go into the claim of the plaintiff and the action of the plaintiff would not amount to alteration of the contract. According to him, the plaintiffs right to alter the date of birth is a continuing action till the date of his retirement. Hence, the suit by him is well within time and prayed for dismissal of the second appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 10. There is no dispute that initially the plaintiff was an employee of Midland Insurance Company wherein he has mentioned his age as 26. He has not furnished the actual date of birth. It is his case on 30.10.1928 he was born to his parents at Devakottai. However, while admission in the school, his date of birth has been recorded as 16. 1925 as per the statement given by his neighbour. According to him the said information is not correct. In order to prove his correct date of birth as 30.10.1928, he very much relied on a telegram dated 31. 10.1928 sent by his uncle Venkatachalam from Devakottai to his father Somasundaram Chettiar at Madras. The said document is marked as Ex.A-5. The said telegram is followed by letter regarding the birth of the plaintiff and the same has been marked as Ex.A-6. Apart from Exs.A-5 and A-6, the plaintiff has also filed his horoscope as Ex.A-4 and horoscope book of his family as Ex.A-3. Relying on those documents, the plaintiff contended that his actual date of birth is 30.10.1928 and not 16. 1925. Apart from the above documentary evidence, the plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.I and also examined his uncle Venkatachalam Chettiar as P.W.2. Apart from the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and documentary evidence Exs.A-3 to A-5, he also relied on a policy of insurance dated 21. 1948 wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 30.10.1928. Transfer Certificate was also filed on the side of the plaintiff which is marked as Ex.A-7, dated 12. 1948 wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 16. 1925. These are all the materials placed by the plaintiff to get a decree for declaration as well as mandatory injunction to make necessary correction in the Service Register maintained by the second defendant. 11. 1948 wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 16. 1925. These are all the materials placed by the plaintiff to get a decree for declaration as well as mandatory injunction to make necessary correction in the Service Register maintained by the second defendant. 11. Before considering the oral and documentary evidence let in on the side of the plaintiff, I shall consider the relevant provisions applicable to the plaintiff. It is also not disputed that by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, the private insurance company, namely, Midland Insurance company was taken over and thereafter, the plaintiff is deemed to be an employee of the second defendant. By virtue of powers vested with the Life Insurance Corporation of India under clauses (b) and (bb) of Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 have been framed. As per Regulation 4, the Chairman of the Insurance Corporation of India is competent to issue instructions or directions to give effect or carry out the provisions of the Regulations, in order to secure effective control over the staff employed in the 2nd defendant corporation. Regulation 4 reads thus: "Power to implement Regulations: 4. The Chairman may, from time to time, issue such instructions or directions as may be necessary to give effect to, and carry out the provisions of these Regulations and in order to secure effective control over the staff employed in the Corporation." As per Regulation 4, Life Insurance Corporation of India (Verification of Date of Birth of Employees) Instructions, 1970 have been issued by the Chairman with regard to verification of date of birth of their employees. These instructions speak about entry regarding the date of birth of the personnel working in Life Insurance Corporation. As per the Instructions, 1970, the plaintiff was called upon to confirm his actual date of birth by submitting evidence. The said communication of the 2nd defendant is dated 23. 1970 which is marked as Ex.B-4. Since the above document is very relevant for the disposal of the issue involved, the same is hereby extracted: "Personnel/RR 25th March, 1970. Shri S.M.Margasahayam, Assistant (S.R.No.00842), P.H.S.Dept., Divisional Office, Thanjavur. Dear Sir, Re:Admission of your date of birth. This refers to your letter dated 3. 1970 addressed to us, regarding the above. 1970 which is marked as Ex.B-4. Since the above document is very relevant for the disposal of the issue involved, the same is hereby extracted: "Personnel/RR 25th March, 1970. Shri S.M.Margasahayam, Assistant (S.R.No.00842), P.H.S.Dept., Divisional Office, Thanjavur. Dear Sir, Re:Admission of your date of birth. This refers to your letter dated 3. 1970 addressed to us, regarding the above. In view of the reasons stated by you in your letter regarding your inability to produce your S.S.L.C. Book in support of your date of birth, we have, after a careful consideration, decided to admit your date of birth in our records, on the basis of the School Transfer Certificate produced by you already on 212. 1969 and the same was returned to you by us on 21. 1970. Accordingly, your date of birth has been entered and admitted as 16. 1925 in our records on the basis of your School Transfer Certificate which may please be noted. Yours faithfully, sd/- xxx P.Divisional Manager. Received original. (sd) xxx 23. 1970 (S.M.Margasahayam) (Plaintiff) A reading of the above letter shows that on the basis of the entry in the Transfer Certificate produced by the plaintiff, the date of birth has been entered and admitted as 16. 1925 in the records of the second defendant. The said letter dated 23. 1970 has been communicated to the plaintiff and the same was acknowledged by him on 23. 1970 as seen from the endorsement by the plaintiff himself in Ex.B-4. 12. In the light of Ex.B-4 as acknowledged by the plaintiff, even on 23. 1970 if the plaintiff had any grievance, he could have availed the right of appeal to the appellate authority provided under Instruction 9 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Verification of Date of Birth of Employees) Instructions, 1970 issued by the Chairman in pursuance of Regulation 4 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The instructions issued by the Chairman as per Regulation 4 referred to above have a statutory force. While considering the very same regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Venugopal v. The Divisional Manager, LLC, 1994 Writ L.R. 548, have observed that the same have statutory force. While considering the very same regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Venugopal v. The Divisional Manager, LLC, 1994 Writ L.R. 548, have observed that the same have statutory force. As per the instructions of the Chairman referred to above, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to put-forth his contention or objection, if any, with regard to his actual date of birth. For the said purpose, he has produced Transfer Certificate and horoscope. The second defendant after holding that in the absence of any other acceptable evidence, preferred the date mentioned in the Transfer Certificate (Ex. A-7) issued by the school authority and thereafter informed the plaintiff that the date of birth has been entered and admitted as 16. 1925 in terms of entry in school Transfer Certificate. Having acknowledged the letter dated 23. 1970 for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, he did not file any appeal before the appellate authority as per Instruction 9 referred to above. Nearly after 11 years he has filed the present suit for declaration as well as for mandatory injunction to make necessary correction in the Service Register. As per Art. 113 of the Limitation Act, the suit filed by the plaintiff after 11 years cannot be accepted as within time. Further, he has not furnished any reason or information for not filing the suit or appeal before the competent authority or writ proceedings before this Court regarding his date of birth. .13. No doubt the plaintiff has very much relied on Ex.A-3 which is the horoscope book of his family and Ex.A-4, his horoscope. First of all, the contents of those documents are not readable and clear. Apart from this, the evidentiary value of the horoscope while construing the correct date of birth is very little. If other acceptable evidence is available, the horoscope of the person concerned may not be given any importance. The evidentiary value of the horoscope has been expressed by this Court in Secretary to Government v. Hari Rao, 91 L.W.4. Apart from this, the evidentiary value of the horoscope while construing the correct date of birth is very little. If other acceptable evidence is available, the horoscope of the person concerned may not be given any importance. The evidentiary value of the horoscope has been expressed by this Court in Secretary to Government v. Hari Rao, 91 L.W.4. With respect I am in agreement with the reason given in that decision and inasmuch as the other documentary evidence is available with regard to proof of age, the entry made in the horoscope need not be considered since the evidentiary value of horoscope with regard to date of birth is very little. Moreover, no one was examined to prove Exs.A-3 and A-4. 14. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has submitted that inasmuch as the lower appellate court has given acceptable reasons on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2, horoscope Ex.A-3 and telegram Ex.A-5 and letter Ex.A-6, the same cannot be lightly interfered in this second appeal. I have already given my reason for the evidentiary value of horoscope, telegram, letter as well as the policy of Insurance coupled with the fact that the plaintiff failed to utilise the opportunity of filing of appeal before the appellate authority etc. In such circumstance, the conclusion of the lower appellate court taking contrary view cannot be sustained. The finding of the lower appellate court based on Exs.A-3 to A-8 cannot be sustained, since the same is perverse and it failed to take note of the important acceptable documents, namely, Exs.B-4 and B-5 produced on the side of the defendants. 15. Regarding jurisdiction of the civil court, inasmuch as not specific provisions of the Act or regulations or instructions are put forth as a bar before the court, the civil court is competent to consider and dispose of the suit of this nature; hence the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable. .16. Finally the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the right of the plaintiff to alter the date of birth is a continuous one and it ensures the plaintiff to take necessary steps till his retirement. I am unable to accept the said argument. .16. Finally the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the right of the plaintiff to alter the date of birth is a continuous one and it ensures the plaintiff to take necessary steps till his retirement. I am unable to accept the said argument. If the plaintiff was not out of notice regarding the date of birth as per the instructions of the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation and the ultimate order passed by the second defendant as seen from Ex.B-4, it is possible to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the first respondent. For the sake of repetition, I am pointing out, in this case that after giving proper notice and opportunity to the plaintiff, the second defendant has entered the date of birth of the plaintiff as 16. 1925 in their records on the basis of the School Transfer Certificate and the same has been acknowledged and accepted by the plaintiff on 23. 1970. Hence the last argument of the learned counsel for the first respondent is also liable to be rejected. 17. It is well-known proposition that if any one wants to alter the date of birth, the same has to be corrected within the time prescribed under the Rules and if there is no Rule, the same has to be rectified atleast within a reasonable time. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he was not aware of the entry made by the defendant as per Ex.B-4. Hence, looking at any angle the case of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. 18. As per the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Ramalingam, (1979)2 M.L.J. 327 . The right to sue accrued on 23. 1970 when the plaintiff received Ex.B-4. As such, the plaintiff ought to have laid the present suit within 3 years from that date under Art. 113 of the Limitation Act. Even if for any reason, Art.58 could be held to be applicable, it will make no difference because the starting point in the present case will be the same and the period within which the suit is to be filed being only three years, the suit filed in 1981 is hopelessly barred by limitation. .19. It is also worthwhile to refer the following observation of their Lordships in Secretary and Commissioner. .19. It is also worthwhile to refer the following observation of their Lordships in Secretary and Commissioner. Home Department v. R.Kirubakaran, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2647: .“If an application is made for correction of the date of birth mentioned in the service records at an early date or within the time prescribed, the authorities are in much better position to verify the same. Normally, in most of the services, the date of birth is recorded in the Service Records on the eve of the appointment with reference to the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate, Higher Secondary Education Board Certificate or any other certificate of similar nature produced by the applicant concerned at the time of making application for his appointment. As such whenever an application for alteration of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the Court or the Tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of growing tendency amongst a section of public servants to raise such a dispute, without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier.” .20. Under these circumstances, 1 conclude that the suit is barred by limitation, that in the absence of any specific bar, the civil court has jurisdiction to determine the date of birth of an employee, among the documents produced by the plaintiff, more particularly, Ex. A-7, Exs.A-3 and A-4 horoscopes which are having little evidentiary value and that the lower appellate court has committed an error in granting decree in favour of the plaintiff. The substantive questions of law framed earlier are answered accordingly. 21. Net result, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and those of the trial court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff are confirmed. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed. No costs.