Karnataka High Court
Yemmimal vs The Head Master on 15 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27152
RSA No. 1420 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1420 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
YEMMIMAL
DAUGHTER OF KRISHNAN NATANIAL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KESHAVANAGAR,
HARIHAR - 577 601.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. G. NARAHARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE HEAD MASTER
M.K.E.T PRIMARY SCHOOL,
Digitally
signed by HARPANAHALLI ROAD,
SHILPABAI S HARIHAR - 577 602.
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 2. THE HEAD MASTER
KARNATAKA M.K.E.T HIGH SCHOOL
HARAPANAHALLI ROAD
HARIHAR - 577 602.
3. THE PRINCIPAL
SMT. GIRIYAMMA KANTHAPPA SHETTY
PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FOR WOMEN,
H.S. EXTENSION, HARIHAR - 577 601.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27152
RSA No. 1420 of 2013
HC-KAR
4. THE PRINCIPAL
FATHIMA (TCH) TEACHERS
TRAINING INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN,
91/1, COLES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS (ADMINISTRATION)
DAVANAGERE DIST., HADADI ROAD,
NEAR WOMEN'S HOSTEL,
DAVANAGERE - 577 525.
6. THE DIRECTOR
PRE UNIVERSITY BOARD,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
7. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA SECONDARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.
8. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
(PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS)
HARIHAR TALUK, HARIHAR - 577 601.
9. DIVISIONAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY SCHOOL,
EXAMINATION BOARD,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
10. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
BANGALORE - 560 053.
11. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
(DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27152
RSA No. 1420 of 2013
HC-KAR
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. G.M. PRIYANKA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R5 TO R11;
R1 TO R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 28.6.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.31/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.2.2008 PASSED IN
OS.NO.38/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND
JMFC, HARIHAR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2013, passed in R.A.No.31/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Harihara, and the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2008, passed in O.S.No.38/2007 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Harihara. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration that she belongs to the Adi Dravida caste and not as Christian and a consequential relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to rectify the mistake, and mention her caste as Adi Dravida in all her school, and college records. It is the case of the plaintiff that she studied from the First Standard in the first defendant school in 1981 and continued her studies up to 7th standard in the same school. Later, she joined the second defendants' school for the 8th standard and studied up to 10th standard in the same school. Later, she joined the third defendants college, where she studied PUC. Thereafter, she joined the fourth defendant college, -5- NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR wherein she completed her TCH in 1988. It is contended that the plaintiff belongs to the Hindu Dravida Community and not to Christian Community. She was born a Hindu, and she never belonged to the Christian Community nor did she practice Christianity, however, her school and college records reveal that she was part of the Christian Community. The illegal and incorrect entry regarding her caste/religion, showing her as a Christian in her school and college records, has crept in by inadvertence due to a bona-fide mistake committed by her father. It is contended that the plaintiff has been a victim of this grave error committed by parents during her minority and her childhood/school days. The plaintiff came to know about the mistake caused in her school records regarding her caste after receiving T.C. from defendant No.4 in 2006. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants under Section 80 of the CPC on 18.01.2007. The defendants replied to the legal notice under Section 80 of the CPC, however, the defendants have not carried out the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR necessary corrections to the school records. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a declaration and mandatory injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.
3.2. The defendants filed a written statement admitting that the plaintiff was the student of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and domed the other averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is contended that the plaintiff's caste was shown as Christian in all the school records. It is contended that the plaintiff's parents since beginning of her education mentioned their case as Christian.
Furthermore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. As of the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff's age was shown as 30 years. The plaintiff should have filed a suit within 3 years after attaining the age of majority to seek a declaration. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR 3.3. The Trial Court, based on the aforementioned pleadings, framed the following issues:
Issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, she belongs to Adidravida caste?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that through oversight wrongly her caste name was entered in the school records as Christian instead of Adidravida?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and consequential relief of rectification of her caste name as Adidravida instead of Christian as sought for?
4) What decree or order?
3.4. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case,
examined herself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 28 documents as Exs.P1 to P28. In rebuttal, the defendants have chosen not to lead oral evidence.
However, they have marked one document as Ex.D1. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative -8- NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.02.2008.
3.5. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.38/2007, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.31/2011 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Harihar. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following point for consideration:
"Whether the finding of trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove her caste is Adi Dravida is erroneous and capricious?"
3.6. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties and after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point in the negative, and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.06.2013.
3.7. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, filed this Regular Second Appeal.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR
4. This Court, on 27.09.2013, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law :
1) Whether a father or parents by converting from Hindu religion to Christianity can affect legally the caste of plaintiff/appellant herein whose ancestors originally belonged to Hindu Adi Dravida Community?
2) Whether a father on his volition an unilateral act affect the caste and religion of his children?
3) Whether caste and religion are two different legal entities or status?
4) Whether a person belonging to
Christianity or being a muslim, on
conversion to Hindu Religion can
choose/select/claim that he belongs to a particular community/caste after such conversion?
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the defendants.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the parents of the plaintiff converted from the Hindu Religion to Christian Religion and can legally affect the caste of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR plaintiff to the original ancestors, who belong to the Hindu Adi Dravida Community. He submits that the father, without knowing the caste, shown the caste of the plaintiff as Christian. Hence, he submits that there was a mistake crept in the school records due to inadvertence. He submits that both the courts below have not properly considered the entire evidence on record and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He submits that the caste certificate produced by the plaintiff has not yet been correctly appreciated by the courts below. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that substantial questions of law framed by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2013 are no more substantial questions of law in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. SELVARANI V. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY CUM DISTRICT COLLECTOR IN C.A.13086/2024 reported in (2024 INSC
900). He submits that both the courts below have
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR concurrently recorded a finding of fact against the plaintiff. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
9. Reg. Substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 4: Substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 4 are taken together for a common discussion as they are interlinked with each other to avoid the repetition of facts.
10. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to declare that her caste is Hindu Adi Dravida Community, and not the Christian Community, and for a direction to the defendants to rectify such mistakes in her school records by way of mandatory injunction. To prove the case, she examined herself as PW.1, and she reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief, and also produced the caste certificate marked as Exs.P27 and P28, and Ex.P22 is the community certificate regarding Krishnan, and also examined one witness who deposed
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR that the plaintiff belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida community and not Christian community. During the course of cross- examination of PW.1 and PW.2, that while admitting the plaintiff to school and college her caste was shown as Christian, not as Hindu. Further, the plaintiff has not produced any records to show that she continued in the Hindu community. In the absence of documents, the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she belongs to Adi Dravida community and further, held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that, due to oversight her caste was wrongly entered in the school records as Christian, instead of Adi Dravida. Further, held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction for rectification of her caste, and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the entire evidence on record, and also the admission of PW.2, who admitted that he himself had filed an application for admission to LKG, Primary School as per
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR Ex.D1, and he has specifically admitted that he had two daughters' names i.e., Rabeka and Lidiya, and they are also educated and in their school records the name of the religion was mentioned as Christian, and they never questioned the same. He also admitted that the plaintiff was married as per the practice prevailing in the Protestant Christian religion and also admitted that Protestant Christians used to go to the Church for prayer and also admitted that his name was entered in the church register with wife and children maintained by the Church at Harihara, and held that the plaintiff does not belong to the Hindu Adidravida caste, and has rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
11. As this appeal was admitted on 27.09.2013, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Selvarani v. The Special Secretary Cum District Collector in C.A.13086/2024 disposed of on 26.11.2024 held at para No.14, which reads as follows:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR "14. Though a feeble argument was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the baptism was done when the appellant was less than three months old, the same does not inspire our confidence as she did not make any attempt to cancel the registration of baptism nor she filed any declaratory suit in this regard. The decisions of this Court referred to on the side of the appellant, are of no assistance to the appellant, as the same are factually distinguishable and dealt with by this Court on different aspects. In the present case, the appellant was a born Christian and could not be associated with any caste. In any case, upon conversion to Christianity, one loses her caste and cannot be identified by it. As the factum of reconversion is disputed, there must be more than a mere claim. The conversion had not happened by any ceremony or through Arya Samaj. No public declaration was effected. There is nothing on record to show that she or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the contrary, there is a factual finding that the appellant still professes Christianity. As noticed above, the evidence on hand is also against the appellant.
Therefore, the contention raised on the side of the appellant that the caste would be under eclipse upon conversion and resumption of the caste upon reconversion, is unsustainable in the facts of the case. On this aspect, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of this Court in S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam, in which, it was observed as under:
"16. We agree with the High Court that, when the appellant embraced Christianity in 1949, he lost the membership of the Adi Dravida Hindu caste. The Christian religion does not recognise any caste classifications. All Christians are treated as equals and there is no distinction between one Christian and another of the type that is recognised between members of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR different castes belonging to Hindu religion. In fact, caste system prevails only amongst Hindus or possibly in some religions closely allied to the Hindu religion like Sikhism. Christianity is prevalent not only in India but almost all over the world and nowhere does Christianity recognise caste division. The tenets of Christianity militate against persons professing Christian faith being divided or discriminated on the basis of any such classification as the caste system. It must, therefore, be held that, when the appellant got converted to Christianity in 1949, he ceased to belong to the Adi Dradiva caste. "
12. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. SELVARANI (Supra), the substantial questions of law framed by this Court are no more substantial questions of law.
13. The appellant filed an application in I.A.No.1/2013 for the production of an additional evidence. In support of an application, the plaintiff an affidavit stating that she belongs to the Hindu Adi Dravida Community, and not a Christian Community and, to prove her contention, she has produced the transfer certificate, certificate dated 08.12.2022, the study certificate dated
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR 09.02.2010 issued by the Goodlet Higher Secondary School, a Cumulative record dated 09.12.2010 regarding Subramaniyan.B, uncle of the plaintiff to show that he was Hindu Harijan, i.e., the study certificate dated 09.02.2010 issued by Goodlet High School, and produced the other records. Though these records are in the custody of the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not choose to file the documents before the trial court nor before the First Appellate Court. The application has been filed only with the intention of filling up the lacuna. The provisions of Order 41 Rue 27 of CPC are not used to fill up the lacuna in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. KAMALAM (DEAD) AND ANR VS AYYASAMY & ANR. reported in (2001)7 SCC 503. The plaintiff has not shown any reason as to why, despite due diligence, she could not produce the said records either before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. The plaintiff has not made out any grounds to entertain an application in I.A.No.1/2023. The courts below were justified in passing the impugned
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27152 RSA No. 1420 of 2013 HC-KAR judgments. Hence, I do not find any errors in the impugned judgments.
In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial questions of law do not arise for consideration.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decree passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed.
I.A.No.1/2013 is rejected.
No order as to the costs.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs', if any, do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB CT: BHK