High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 12 BOM CK 2932

Suresh Maske vs Secretary/Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Silli

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench · Decided on 19 December 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rohit W. Joshi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Second Appeal No.382 of 2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 226 words
1.

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that his date of birth is 25.07.1970 and further direction to the defendant/Gram Panchayat to take an entry regarding birth of the plaintiff in the register of births and deaths accordingly.

2.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that since his parents were illiterate, entry with respect to the birth was not recorded in the records of Gram Panchayat and that while admitting the plaintiff in school his parents wrongly mentioned date of birth 25.07.1968 which in fact is 25.07.1970. The plaintiff examined himself and his elder brother in support of his contention. The said brother is three years older than the plaintiff. Both the Courts have found that the evidence brought on record by the plaintiff is not sufficient to grant a declaration with respect to his date of birth as relevant records pertaining him.

3.

The Courts have found that the evidence of the plaintiff and his brother, who is only three years older than him, cannot be relied upon to determine the correct date of birth of the plaintiff as alleged by him as against the documents in which the date of birth is recorded as 25.07.1970. The findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts do not warrant interference.

4.

No substantial question of law arises for consideration, Second Appeal is dismissed.