IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.164 of 2005 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 2. The Chief Engineer, Tirbut Canal Gandak Project, Motihari, P.O. and P.S. Motihari, District East Champaran. ……Defendants- Appellants- Appellants. Versus Jumrati Mian son of late Lalchand Mian, resident of village- Bairia Kothi, Gadiani Tola, P.O. and P.S. Bainia, District- West Champaran. …… Plaintiff- Respondent. ----------- For the Appellant :Mr. Archana Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent: None. ---------- 9/ 12-12-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants- appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.153 of 1994, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for a direction to the authorities concerned to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff given in his service book. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Bettiah by his judgment and decree dated 28.07.1998. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1999, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-7, West Champaran, by his judgment and decree dated 19.02.2004. The instant second appeal has been filed challenging both the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 4. From the averments as well as the material on record, including the impugned judgment of the learned courts below it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below have concurrently found that - 2 - there was over-writing in the year of birth of the plaintiff given in the service book and below the number “4”, the number “5” was clearly visible. It was further found that just after the date of birth some words i.e., by horoscope as produced by the incumbent were written within bracket and it was specifically found that according to the horoscope, the date of birth of the plaintiff was “30.03.1953” and the same date was mentioned in the service book but by overwriting it was sought to be changed. It was also held that the defendants were the custodian of the service-book of the plaintiff and overwriting and cutting were made while the service-book was in their possession. 5. The aforesaid findings are clearly findings of fact and this Court cannot interfere in the said finding under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the said findings are based on evidence and cannot be held to be illegal and hence this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of Hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. B.Tiwary/ (S.N Hussain,J)