( 415 )
Present: Akbar J.
PERERA v. PERERA BALASURIYA.
19—D. C. Colombo, 1583 (Special).
Registration of births—Application for rectification—Insertion of thename of the father—Ordinance No. 1 of 1895, s. 22.
An application for the rectification of the registration of thebirth of a child by the insertion of the name of the father may bemade to the District Court under section 22 of the Registration of'Births and Deaths Ordinance, No. 1 of 1895.
^PPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Colombo.
Weerasooria, for petitioner, appellant.
April 25, 1929. Akbar J.—
This was an application to the District Court under section 22 ofthe Births and Deaths Ordinance, No. 1 of 1895, whereby theapplicant applied to the District Court to cause an entry in thebirths register to be rectified. The entry in question referred to thebirth of the applicant’s child on July 5, 1922. The father of thischild is the first respondent, and the petitioner was unmarried at thetime of the birth. On December 20 the first respondent and thepetitioner married and the marriage was registered. This is anapplication to enter the name of the first respondent as the fatherof the child bom oh July 5, 1922.
The entries with'regard to illegitimate children are regulated bysection 18 of the same Ordinance. In such cases no name is to beentered as the father of the child, unless at the joint request of themother and father, in which event the person acknowledging himselfto be the father must sign the register himself. Under section 18the name of the father may also be entered on orders of a competentCourt.
The District Judge has refused the application because he was ofthe opinion that the reference to an order of a competent Court insection 18 meant an order of Court made under section 22. I thinkthe District Judge has misunderstood section 22. Section 18refers to the registration of births, whereas section 22 refers to therectification of an entry of birth already registered. This was theeffect of the decision the Supreme Court came to in the case ofVelon Gabaral v. White and others.1 In that case the petitioner1 (1905) 1 S. C. D. 53.
applied to erase from the register of births an entry relating to agirl in which the petitioner’s name was entered as that of the fatherof the girl. The Supreme Court held that the view of the DistrictJudge that section 22 only applied to the alteration of an entrywhich had been entered by error or mistake was wrong. It was alsopointed out that the proceedings under section 22 were summaryand that recourse to them did not prevent the parties from“ questioning the correctness of the entries in due course of law. ”
I would follow that case in this application and give the petitionerthe right to have the entry rectified by the insertion of the name of.the first respondent as the father of the child, if upon inquiry theDistrict Judge is satisfied that he is the father. What betterevidence can the Court expect than the admission of the firstrespondent himself ? I see no reason why this application shouldnot be allowed. *
I would set aside the order of the District Judge, and send thecase back for an inquiry under section 22 in the ordinary course.
PERERA v. PERERA BALASURIYA