to the learned Judges, we are not able to agree with the above view. As mentioned earlier, before Act 18 of 1969 came into force the petitioner could have got his birth registered belatedly by invoking the powers of the Registrar under S. 13 of the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953. It is true that by virtue of the provisions contained under S. 31 of Act 18of 1969 the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 stands repealed. At the same time, it cannot be held that while the petitioner who has lost the right which he had under S. 13 of the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953, has to be denied an opportunity to get his birth registered by invoking the provisions contained under S. 13(3) of the Act 18 of 1969. If a different view is taken we will reach an anomalous position. Those who were born before 1-41970 will have no remedy if his birth had not been already registered under the Travancore-Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 and a person who is born on 1-4-70 or afterwards can get his birth registered beyond the period prescribed under law by invoking the provisions contained under S. 13(3). When the very object of the Act is to have a uniform set of, provisions applying to all persons in India by doing away the different enactments prevalent in each State it could not have been the intention of the legislature to deny certain persons the benefit of S. 13 of the Act 18 of 1969 as also the provisions of law originally applicable to them only for the reason that they were born before 1-4-70. We are therefore, of the view that it is open to those who are born before 1-4-70 also to take advantage the provisions contained under S. 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to get their birth registered after the prescribed period. Thus, we hold that the decision reported in 1987 (2) KLT 1028 (Supra) does not lay down correct law.”
