056-NLR-NLR-V-71-THE-REGISTRAR-GENERAL-Petitioner-and-G.-D.-GEEDRICK-Respondent.pdf
ABEYESUNDERE, J.—Registrar-General v. Gccdrick
249
1987 Present: Abeyesundere, J., and Siva Supramanlam, J.THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL, Petitioner, andG. D. GEEDRICK, Respondent
8, C. 423(66—Application for Revision in D. C. Colombo, 5200JX
Birth Register—Amendment of entries therein—Application made bg father on behaljof his son—District Court, has no jurisdiction to permit it—Births and DeathsRegistration Act,ss. 27, 28 (J).
Section 28 (I) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act does not permit afather to apply to the District Court for amendments to be made in the birthregistration entries relating to his son who is a minor.
Application to revise an order of the District Court, Colombo.
H. L. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the 1st Respondent-Petitioner.
S. W. Jayasuriya, with S. Ounasekera, for the Petitioner-Respondent.
* *
.January 22, 1967. Abeyesundebe, J.—
The application dated 17th December, 1965 was made by GeeganageDon Geedrick to the District Court of Colombo praying for certainamendments to be made in the birth registration entries relating to hisson Geegamage Don Ariyadasa. The first amendment that was prayedfor was the. alteration of the name of the applicant’s son from“ Geegamage ” to “ Geeganage ”, and the other two amendments wererespectively for the purpose of altering the applicant’s name and theinsertion of particulars relating to the applicant’s marriage/ TheRegistrar-General, who was the 1st respondent to the application,objected to the proposed alteration of the name of the applicant’s sonon the ground that he was a minor and therefore the application for thealteration of his name could not be made to the District Court underSection 28 (1) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act. The learned
250
, Peirie v. Samarawcera
District Judge however ‘allowed all the amendments. The Registrar-General, appearing by Crown Counsel, prays that this Court exerciseits powers of revision and set aside the first amendment in the birthregistration entries relating to the applicant’s son which has been orderedby the District Judge without jurisdiction.
Section 28 (1) (a) of the aforesaid Act permits a person to apply to theDistrict Court for the alteration of his name in the entries relating tohis birth only if that person is not less than twenty-one years of age,and that section also provides, that such application may be made to theDistrict Court only by a person desiring his name to be altered.According to the certificate of biirth of the applicant’s son, he was bomon 13th March, 1949 and was a minor when his father made the aforesaidapplication on 17th December, 1965. The District Court could nottherefore have, upon that application, ordered the birth registrationentries to be altered in respect of the name of the applicant’s son. Wherea person who desires to have his name altered in the birth registrationentries is a minor, section 27 of the aforesaid Act requires him to make anapplication to the Registrar-General. The learned District Judge hasmisdirected himself in not observing the relevant provisions of theaforesaid Act and permitting the amendment of the entiy relating to thename of the applicant’s son.
For the aforesaid reasons, in the exercise of the powers of revision ofthis Court, I vary the order made by the learned District Judge dated23rd September, 1966 by omitting therefrom the amendment directedby him to be made in Cage 12 of the birth registration entries relatingto Geegamage Don Ariyadasa.
Siva Supramaniam, J.—I agree.
Order varied.