Bangalore District Court
Master M.Darshan vs ) The Principal on 12 November, 2021
KABC010010822021
Govt. of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
Dated this the 12th day of November 2021
PRESENT: Sri.Rama Naik, B.Com., LL.B.,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No.426/2021
PLAINTIFF MASTER M.DARSHAN
S/o.Sri.M.Mallu
Aged about 13 years
Minor reptd. By his father & natural guardian
Sri.M.Mallu, S/o.Sri.Mallegowda
R/at No.37, 25th Cross
2nd Main Road, Bhuvanesharinagar
K.P.Agrahara, Bengaluru -560 023
[By Pleader Sri.Ramachandra.A]
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1) THE PRINCIPAL
Presidency International English
OS.426/2021
2
Higher Primary School
No.26, 1st Cross, Cholurpalya
Magadi Road
Bengaluru - 560 023.
[By Pleader Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah]
2) BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
South Range - 1
Tulasithota, Near Chikka Lalbagh
Bengaluru -560 053.
3) DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Deputy Director of Public Instruction
Bangalore South Range
No.12, Dispensary Road
Kalasipalya, Bengaluru -560 002
4) THE COMMISSIONER
Office of the Commissioner of Public
Instructions
Nrupathunga Road
Near K.R.Cirlce, Bengaluru -560 001
[By Pleader Smt.Shantha B.Mullur -
I ADGP]
Date of Institution of the suit : 15.01.2021
Nature of the Suit : Declaration
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 25.08.2021
OS.426/2021
3
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 12.11.2021
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : -- 09 27
(RAMA NAIK)
VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
Suit is filed by Plaintiff to direct Defendants to rectify his caste as 'Kuruba' instead of 'Vokkaliga'.
2) In brief, Plaintiff's case is that his father is uneducated. He belongs to Kuruba caste. While admitting Plaintiff to school, due to inadvertent mistake, admission form was filled by mentioning the caste as 'Vokkaliga' instead of 'Kuruba'.
OS.426/2021 4
3) It is stated that, Plaintiff, recently, came to know the mistake crept in his school records relating to his caste.
4) It is stated that Plaintiff gave representation vide letter dated 24.04.2019 to Defendant No.1, to change his caste, who advised to approach proper authority. Despite issue of legal notice dated 02.11.2020, Defendants did choose not to comply with the request made in the notice. Hence, prays for decree.
5) Summonses issued to Defendants were duly served. Defendant No.1 marked appearance through his advocate and filed his written statement. Defendants No.2 to 4 marked appearance through 1st Additional District Government Pleader [1st ADGP] and filed their written statement.
OS.426/2021 5
6) Defendant No.1, in his written statement, states that Plaintiff continued his education in their Institution up to 7th standard. After promoting from 7th standard to 8th standard, Defendant No.1 issued Transfer Certificate of Plaintiff mentioning the caste of Plaintiff as 'Vokkaliga' as per the records maintained by them.
7) It is stated that Defendant No.1 has no knowledge about the caste of Plaintiff.
8) It is stated that Defendant No.1 has no authority to change the caste of Plaintiff in his school records and that only competent authority can do so. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
9) Defendants No.2 to 4, in their written statement, state that particulars furnished by the parents of Plaintiff have been entered in school records. There is no mistake on the part of OS.426/2021 6 Defendants in entering the caste of Plaintiff in the school records.
10) It is stated that suit is barred by limitation as the same has been filed after lapse of considerable time.
11) It is further stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as the Government has formed the Caste Verification Committee to deal with the subject.
12) It is stated that as per Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the caste of student in the school records.
13) It is stated that suit has been filed against the officials of the Government. As per Order XXVII Rule 5-A of CPC, the Government ought to have been made as party to this suit, and hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.
OS.426/2021 7
14) It is stated that Plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, pray for dismissal of the suit.
15) Issues that have been framed by this Court are as follows :
1) Whether Plaintiff proves that his caste is "KURUBA" caste?
2) Whether Defendants No.1
proves that, in view of
Notification dated 17.02.2018 issued by Government of Karnataka, Plaintiff's suit for change of caste is not maintainable before the Court?3) Whether Defendants No.2 to 4
prove that suit is barred by limitaion?
4) Whether Defendants No.2 to 4 prove that suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties?
5) Whether Defendants No.2 to 4 prove that this court has no jurisidction to declare the caste of Plaintiff ?
6) Whether Defendants No.2 to 4 prove that, without seeking declaration, suit filed by Plaintiff is not maintainable?
OS.426/2021 8 7) Whether Defendants No.2 to 4 prove that Plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit ?
8) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ?
9) What Order or Decree?
16) Plaintiff has got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 in support of his case. Defendants have chosen not to lead their evidence.
17) Heard learned Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and learned 1st ADGP for Defendants No.2 to 4. Perused the records.
18) My findings on the above Issues are :
Issue No.1 - Does not survive; Issue No.2 - In Affirmative;
Issue No.3 - Does not survive;
Issue No.4 - In Affirmative;
Issue No.5 : In Affirmative;
Issue No.6 : Does not survive;
Issue No.7 : In Affirmative;
OS.426/2021 9 Issue No.8 : In Negative;
Issue No.9 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS 19) Issue No.4 : Defendants No.2 to 4 contend that suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. It is contended that Order XXVII Rule 5-A of CPC mandates that 'the State' must be made as party to the suit in which relief is sought for against the State.
20) Section 79 of CPC makes it clear that in case of a suit by or against a State Government the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendants shall be the State.
21) Order XXVII Rule 5-A of CPC makes it mandatory that where a suit is instituted against a Public Officer for damages or other relief in respect of any act alleged to have been done by him in his OS.426/2021 10 official capacity, the Government shall be joined as a party to the suit.
22) Plaintiff has filed this suit against Government officials without arraying the Government as party to this suit. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in N.C.Channabasappa vs. Assistant Education Officer, [1991 (2) Kar.L.J. 381], was pleased to hold as under :
"9. That Order 27, Rule 5-A of Civil Procedure Code mandates that the Government be made a party whenever an officer is sued for damages in the discharge of his duties or for any other relief is not in doubt, therefore, the lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit for non-joinder of proper and necessary party.
23) Thus, it is clear that it is mandatory in terms of Order XXVII Rule 5-A of CPC to array the Government as party in the suit filed against Public Officers. Cause title of plaint makes it clear that Plaintiff has instituted the suit against the officials OS.426/2021 11 of the Government without the State Government being made as party to the suit. In that view, it can be fairly said that the contention raised by Defendants No.2 to 4 is within the purview of law;
accordingly, I answer the above issue in the affirmative.
24) Issues Nos.2, 5, 7 and 8 : These issues being interrelated are taken together for discussion.
Plaintiff's suit is for correction of his school records relating to his caste.
25) Plaintiff contends that his caste is 'Kuruba'. Owing to illiteracy of his father, his caste has been entered as 'Vokkaliga' in his school records and same needs to be rectified.
26) Father of Plaintiff, Sri. M.Mallu has deposed as PW.1 reiterating to the facts stated in the plaint. Documents produced by Plaintiff are at Exs.P.1 to P.13.
OS.426/2021 12
27) Ex.P.1 is study certificate of Plaintiff. In Ex.P.1, Plaintiff's caste is mentioned as 'Vokkaliga'. Ex.P.2 is admission form submitted by Plaintiff's father to Defendant No.1. In Ex.P.2, Plaintiff's caste is written as 'Vokkaliga'.
28) Ex.P.11 is Income and Caste Certificate of PW.1 issued by Tahsildar, Bangaluru North Taluk. In Ex.P.11, Plaintiff's father's caste is mentioned as 'Kuruba'.
29) Ex.P.12 is Income and Caste Certificate of the daughter of PW.1 issued by Tahsildar, Bangaluru North Taluk. In Ex.P.12, her caste is mentioned as 'Kuruba'.
30) Ex.P.13 is study certificate of PW.1 issued by Head Master of 'Sri. Lal Bahadur Shasthri Memorial Kannada Aided School', Cholurupalya, Magadi Road, Bengalore. In Ex.P.13, his caste is shown as 'Kuruba'.
OS.426/2021 13
31) From the above documents, it would be clear that caste of Plaintiff's father and sister has been shown as 'Kuruba' in their respective documents, whereas, Plaintiff's caste has been shown as 'Vokkaliga' in his school records.
32) Defendant No.1 contends that as per the records, Plaintiff's transfer certificate has been issued by mentioning his caste as 'Vokkaliga'. It has no authority to correct the caste of Plaintiff in their school records.
33) It is contended that as per Government Notification dated 17.02.2018, only competent authority can take the decision relating to the caste.
34) Defendants No.2 to 4 contend that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit as Government has formed 'Caste Verification Committee' and only the Caste Verification Committee can take decision relating to the caste.
OS.426/2021 14
35) Ex.P.10 makes it clear that Defendant No.1 vide letter dated 06.11.2020 informed the counsel for Plaintiff, as well as Plaintiff about the Government Notification dated 17-02-2018. Relevant portions of the Notification read as under :
"ವದದದರರಗಳ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತಗಳಲಲ ವದದದರರಯ ಹಹಸರರ, ಪಪಷಕರ ಹಹಸರರ, ಜದತ, ಜನನ ದನದನಕ ಇತದದದ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡರವ ಬಗಹಗ ಉಲಹಲಪಖ (1)ರ ಸರತಹತತಪಲಹಯಲಲ ನದಹಪರಶನ ನಪಡಲದಗದಹ. ಜದತ ಘತಪಷಣಹ ಬಗಹಗ ವಚದರಣಹ ನಡಹಸ ತಪಪರರ ನಪಡಲರ ಸವಲಲ ನದದಯದಲಯಗಳಗಹ ಅವಕದಶವರರವರದಲಲ ಎನದರ ಮದನದ ಸರಪರಚಚ ನದದಯದಲಯವರ ನಪಡರರವ ತಪಪರನರನ ಸದರ ಸರತಹತತಪಲಹಯಲಲ ಉಲಹಲಪಖಸ, ವದದದರರಗಳ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತಗಳಲಲ ಜದತ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡರವ ಬಗಹಗ ಜಲದಲ ಮಟಟದ ಜದತ ಪರಶಪಲನದ ಸಮತ ನಪಡರವ ಆದಹಪಶದನತಹ ತದರದಪಡ ಬಗಹಗ ಕಕಮವಹಸರವನತಹ ತಳಸಲದಗದಹ.
ಈ ಬಗಹಗ ಕಹಲವರ ಜಲದಲ ಜದತ ಪರಶಪಲನದ ಸಮತಗಳರ ಕಕಮವಹಸದಹ ಪಕಸದತವನಹಗಳನರನ ಹನದರರಗಸರತತದದ ಹನನಲಹಯಲಲ ಕದನತನರ ಕಹತಪಶದ ಅಭಪದಕಯ ಪಡಹಯಲದಗತರತ. ಈ ಸನಬನಧ ಕದನತನರ ಕಹತಪಶವರ ಜದತ ಘಹತಪಷಣಹ ಕರರತನತಹ ಸವಲಲ ನದದಯದಲಯಗಳರ ನಪಡರರವ/ನಪಡಲದಗರವ ಆದಹಪಶಗಳನರನ ಜದರಗಹತಳಸತಕಕದದಲಲ. ಇನರನ ಮರನದಹ ಅಜರದದರರರ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲಹಗಳಲಲ ಜದತ ಬದಲದವಣಹ ಬಯಸದದಲಲ ಜಲದಲ ಜದತ ಪರಶಪಲನದ ಸಮತಯ ಮರನದಹ ಅಜರ ಸಲಲಸತಕಕದರದ ಇನದರ ಉಲಹಲಪಖ (2)ರ ಸರತಹತತಪಲಹಯಲಲ ತಳಸಲದಗದಹ.
ಶಕಪ ಶವಪಕಸದದ ಈಶಶರಪಪ ಜಮಖನಡ ಇವರರ ಜದತ ತದರದಪಡ ಕಹತಪರ ಸಲಲಸದ ಅಜರ ಪಕಕರಣದಲಲ ಜಲದಲ ಅಧಕದರಗಳರ, ಹನದರಳದ ವಗರಗಳ ಕಲದದಣ ಇಲದಖಹ, ಬದಗಲಕಹತಪಟಹ ಇವರರ ಸಕದರರದ ಸರತಹತತಪಲಹ ಸನಖಹದ ಸಕಇ 93 ಎಸಎಡ 2017 ದನದನಕ 06-09-2017 ರನತಹ ಜದತ ತದರದಪಡಯರ ಜಲದಲ ಜದತ ಆದದಯ ಪರಶಪಲನದ ಸಮತಯ ವದದಪತಗಹ ಬರರವರದಲಲ ಎನಬ ಅನಶವನರನ ತಳಸ ದನದನಕ 03- 10-2016 ರ ಪತಕದಲಲ ಉಪ ನದಹಪರಶಕರರ, ಸದ.ಶ.ಇಲದಖಹ, ಬದಗಲಕಹತಪಟಹ ಇವರರ ಸಲಲಸರರವ ಪಕಸದತವನಹಯನರನ ಹನದರರಗಸರರತದತರಹ.
OS.426/2021 15 ವದದದರರಗಳ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತಗಳಲಲ ಜದತ ಹಹಸರರಗಳನರನ ತದರದಪಡಮದಡವ ಬಗಹಗ ಆಯರಕತರರ, ಸಮದಜಕಲದದಣ ಇಲದಖಹ ಮತರತ ಸಕದರರದ ಅಪರ ಮರಖದ ಕದಯರದಶರ (ಪದಕಥಮಕ ಮತರತ ಪಪಕಢ ಶಕಕಣ), ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖಹ ಇವರರಗಳರ ಸಪಷಟಪಕರಣವನರನ ನಪಡರವನತಹ ಕಹತಪರದರದ, ಈಗದಗಲಹಪ ಪದಕಥಮಕ ಮತರತ ಪಪಕಢ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖಹ ಇವರ ಸರತಹತತಪಲಹ ಸನಖಹದ ಇಡ 15 ಡಟಬ 2016 ದನದನಕ 19-11- 2016 ರಲಲ ತಳಸರರವನತಹ That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several decisions has laid down the law that the civil courts are impliedly barred from declaring the caste of persons that too in respect of SC/ST. ಮರನದರವರಹದರ ಸವಲಲ ನದದಯದಲಯದ ಆದಹಪಶದ ಆಧದರದ ಮಪಲಹ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತಗಳಲಲ ಜದತ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡರವ ಪಕಕರಣಗಳನರನ ಜಲದಲ ಜದತ ಪರಶಪಲನದ ಸಮತ ಮರನದ ಸಲಲಸರವನತಹ ಮಪಲಕನಡ ಆದಹಪಶದಲಲ ತಳಸದಹ. ಈ ಅನಶಗಳನರನ ಪರಶಪಲಸ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಜದತಯ ಹಹಸರನರನ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡರವ ಬಗಹಗ ಸಮದಜ ಕಲದದಣ ಇಲದಖಹಯರ ಸರತಹತತಪಲಹ ಸನಖಹದ ಸಕಇ 93 ಎಸಎಡ 2017 ದನದನಕ 06-09-2017 ರಲಲ ಈ ಕಹಳಕನಡನತಹ ಸಪಷಟಪಕರಸರರತತದಹ -
1. ಮಪಲಕನಡ ವಷಯದಲಲ ಕನದರಟಕ ಅನರಸತಚತ ಜದತಗಳರ ಮತರತ ಅನರಸತಚತ ಬರಡಕಟರಟಗಳರ ಹದಗರ ಇತರಹ ಹನದರಳದ ವಗರಗಳ (ನಹಪಮಕದತ ಮರನತದದವರಗಳ ಮಪಸಲದತ) ಅಧನಯಮ 1990 ಕಲನ 4(ಸ) ಮತರತ ತತತನಬನಧ ತದರದಪಡ ನಯಮಗಳರ 1992 ರ ನಯಮ 4 ರನಶಯ ತಹಶಪಲದದರರನದ ನಪಡದ ಜದತ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕವನರನ ಪರಶಪಲಸ ಜದತ ಸನಧರತಶ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕವನರನ ನಪಡರವ ಅಧಕದರ ಜಲದಲ ಜದತ ಪರಶಪಲನದ ಸಮತಗಹ ಇರರತತದಹಯಪ ಹಹತರತರ, ಶದಲದ ದದಖದಲಹಗಳಲಲ ಜದತಗಳನರನ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡರವ ಅಧಕದರ ಹಹತನದರರವರದಲಲ.
2. ಕನದರಟಕ ಅನರಸತಚತ ಜದತಗಳರ ಮತರತ ಅನರಸತಚತ ಬರಡಕಟರಟಗಳರ ಹದಗತ ಇತರಹ ಹನದರಳದ ವಗರಗಳ (ನಹಪಮಕದತ ಮರನತದದವರಗಳ ಮಪಸಲದತ) ಅಧನಯಮ 1990 ಕದಯದಯನತಹ ತಹಶಪಲದದರರರ ಜದತ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕಗಳನರನ ನಪಡರವ ಅಧಕದರ ಹಹತನದರರತದತರಹ ಮತರತ ಜದತ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕ ನಪಡರವ ಮರನಚಹ ತಹಶಪಲದದರರರ ಶದಲದ OS.426/2021 16 ದದಖಲದತಗಳರ ಸಹಪರದನತಹ ಇತರ ದದಖಲದತಗಳನರನ ಮತರತ ಸಸಳ ಪರಶಪಲನಹ ಇತದದದ ಪರಶಪಲಸ ನಹನಜದವದದ ಅಜರದದರರಗಹ ಜದತ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕ ನಪಡತಕಕದರದ. ಕಹಪವಲ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತ ಆಧದರದ ಮಪಲಹಯಪ ಜದತ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕ ನಪಡತಕಕದದಲಲ. ಆದದರನದ ಜಲದಲ ಜದತ ಪರಶಪಲನದ ಸಮತ ತಹಶಪಲದದರರರ ನಪಡದ ಜದತಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕಗಳನರನ ಪರಶಪಲಸ ಜದತ ಸನಧರತಶ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕವನರನ ನಪಡಬಹರದಹಪ ಹಹತರತರ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತ ತದರದಪಡಗಳ ಬಗಹಗ ಕಕಮವಹಸರವನತಲಲ.
3. ಮದನದ ಸರಪರಚಚ ನದದಯದಲಯದ ತಪಪರರಗಳನತಹ ಸವಲಲನದದಯದಲಯಗಳಗಹ ಜದತಗಳ ಬಗಹಗ ನಧರರಸರವ ಅಧಕದರ ಇಲಲದಹಪ ಇರರವರದರನದ, ಸವಲಲ ನದದಯದಲಯಗಳರ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತಗಳಲಲ ಜದತ ಬದಲದವಣಹ ಬಗಹಗ ನಪಡದ ಆದಹಪಶಗಳನರನ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖಹಯರ ಉನನತ ನದದಯದಲಯಗಳಲಲ ಮಪಲನನವ ಸಲಲಸ ಸತಕತ ಆದಹಪಶಗಳನರನ ಪಡಹಯಬಹರದರ. ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲಹಗಳಲಲ ತಪರಪ ಜದತ ನಮತದದಗದದರಹ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖಹಯರ ಅದನರನ ಸರಪಡಸಬಹಪಕದದಲಲ ಸನಬನಧಪಟಟ ಅಜರದದರರರ ಮದಲರ ಜದತ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕ ಪಡಹಯಬಹಪಕದಗದಹ ಮತರತ ಅದರ ಆಧದರದ ಮಪಲಹ ಮರನದನ ಕಕಮ ಜರಗಸಬಹರದರ. ತಹಶಪಲದದರರರ ನಪಡದ ಜದತ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕದಲಲ ಸನಶಯಗಳದದರಹ ಅಥವದ ಅದರನದ ಬದಧತರದದವರರ ವಪಸಲದತ ಕದಯದ 1990 ಕಲನ 4(ಬ)ರಡಯಲಲ ಕನದದಯ ಇಲದಖಹಯ ಉಪ ವಭದಗದಧಕದರಗಳಗಹ ಮಪಲನನವ ಸಲಲಸಬಹರದರ. ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತಗಳಲಲ ಮರಖಹತದಪಪದಧದದಯರರ ಯದವರದಹಪ ವಚದರಣಹ ಇಲಲದಹ ಪಪಷಕರರ ನಪಡದ ಮದಹತ ಮಪಲಹ ಜದತಗಳನರನ ನಮತದಸರರತದತರಹ. ಆದದರನದ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತಗಳಲಲ ನಮತದಸರರವ ಜದತಯಪ ನಹನಜ ಎನದರ ಪರಗಣಸಲರ ಸದಧದವದಗರವರದಲಲ. "
36) In Dharmanna S/o. Melagineppa Sharegar vs. The Deputy Commissioner [RSA OS.426/2021 17 No.816/2006 (PAR), dated 14-02-2014], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold thus :
" 9. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the effect of a declaration that would be granted by a Civil Court, the jurisdiction of the civil court is implied by barred and that civil court cannot take cognizance of such a suit. If really the Plaintiff's father had belonged to Scheduled Tribe as is sought to be impressed upon this Court on the basis of the Ex.P11, a school certificate of the father of the Plaintiff issued by the school in which he was studying, nothing comes in the way of the Plaintiff to approach the jurisdictional District Caste Verification Committee as per Rule 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules 1992. These rules have been promulgated as per sub Section 1 of Section 13 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990. In such event, concerned District Caste Verification Committee would take all steps as per the provisions of the Act and Rules framed therein and will take appropriate action as early as possible. "
37) Same principles of law have been enunciated in (1) Sri.P.S.Venugopal @ P.S.Venu Vs. The Chief Secretary (RSA 155/2015) and (2) Miss.Y.R.Vishalakshi Vs. The Secretary (RFA OS.426/2021 18 1574/2016 dated 01.12.2016). In both judgments, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to obbserve that, suit relating to declaration of caste is not maintainable. Para-1 of the judgment in the case of Miss.Y.R.Vishalakshi Vs. The Secretary reads as follows :
".......This court while dealing with the similar matter in a case reported in ILR 2014 KAR 5389 [The Government of Karnataka, rep. by Deputy Commissioner and Others Vs. Kumari Shilpa Shrishail Baragadagi and Another.] held that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction as there is inhibition under Section 9 of C.P.C. as there is a separate forum with respect to correction of the caste certificates or for declaration of the caste constituted under Karnataka Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments Etc.) Act, 1990. The principles laid down in the above said case reads as follows :- CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 100 Regular Second Appeal suit for declaration of caste and consequential relief of rectification of caste wrongly entered in the school records Claim of the plaintiff, that she belongs to Hindu Hatagar, a backward community caste and the same is wrongly entered in school register as Hindu Lingayat Decreetal of suit, confirmed in appeal Second appeal against Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant caste declaration. HELD, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant caste declaration. The very suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of inhibition under Section 9 of CPC. FURTHER HELD, as per the provisions OS.426/2021 19 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments Etc.) Act, 1990, a Committee is constituted to verify the income and caste. The said Act has stood amended by Act No.27 of 1997, which received the assent on 29.09.1997. As per Section 4-A, 4-B, 4-C and 4-D have been inserted to Section 4 by virtue of Act 27 of 1997. As per Section 4, a Caste Verification Committee is constituted in all the districts to verify the caste and also the income. As per Section 3(A) of the said Act, an application will have to be made to the Tahasildar who will verify the information, documents and such other materials furnished by the applicant and on such verification if he is satisfied with the correctness of the information, documents and evidence furnished by the applicant, he will issue a caste certificate or income certificate in Forms D, E or F. An appeal is provided under Section 4(A) to the Assistant Commissioner. Rules have been framed in this regard and they have come into force from 08.02.2000 vide Gazette Notification bearing No.SWD 132 SAD 97. Hence, Civil Court's jurisdiction is impliedly barred, more particularly, in the light of an appeal being provided under Section 4(B) against an order passed under Section 4(A) by the Tahasildar regarding issuance of caste certificate and income certificate."
38) Thus, from the above conspectus of the law, and from the Circular issued by the Government of Karnataka, it is clear that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to OS.426/2021 20 declaration of caste. All that claim regarding declaration of caste or change in caste can be laid before the Caste Verification Committee of the concerned District as per Rule 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992. In that view, it can be fairly said that Plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same; accordingly, I answer Issues No.2, 5 and 7 in the affirmative and Issue No.8 in the negative.
39) Issues No.1, 3, and 6 : In view of findings on Issues No.2, 5 and 7, these Issues do not survive for consideration.
40) Issue No.9 : For foregoing discussion and findings on Issues No.2, 5 and 7, I pass the following :
OS.426/2021 21 ORDER (1) Suit of Plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.
(3) Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed matter corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12th day of November 2021) (RAMA NAIK) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City OS.426/2021 22 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Sri.M.Mallu, dtd. 25.08.2021
(b) Defendants side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Study Certificate of Plaintiff issued by Defendant No.1 School Ex.P.2 Admission Form of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 School Ex.P.3 Office copy of legal notice dtd.02.11.2020 Ex.P.4 To Postal Receipts Ex.P.7 Ex.P.8 And Postal Acknowledgments Ex.P.9 Ex.P.10 Letter dtd.06.11.2020 issued by Defendant No.1 Ex.P.11 Income and Caste Certificate of PW.1 Ex.P.12 Income and Caste Certificate of Kumari M.Hamsaveni Ex.P.13 Study Certificate of Kum.Hamsaveni.M, dtd.29.09.2021
(b) Defendants side : NIL VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City OS.426/2021 23