Bangalore District Court
) Mr.Anthoni Abhishek vs ) Government Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2021
KABC010309552018
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 13th day of December 2021
PRESENT: Sri. Rama Naik, B.Com., LL.B.,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.NO.8078/2018
PLAINTIFFS 1) MR.ANTHONI ABHISHEK
S/o.Mr.M.Narayanaswamy
Aged about 19 years
2) MR.M.NARAYANASWAMY
S/o.Mr.Muniyappa
Aged about 47 years
3) MRS.SAVITA MARGRET
W/o.Mr.Narayanaswamy
Aged about 40 years
All are R/at No.170, Uttarahalli
Bengaluru -560 061
[By Pleader Sri.Abdul Khader]
OS.8078/2018
2
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Vidhana Soudha
Bengaluru -560 001.
Reptd.by its Principal Secretary
Education Department
2) THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS
Bengaluru South, Kalasipalyam
Bengaluru - 560 002
3) THE KARNATAKA SECONDARY
EDUCATION BOARD
6th Cross, Malleshwaram
Bengaluru -560 003
4) THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
Kalasipalyam, Bengaluru - 560 002
[By Pleader Smt.Lohitheshwari -
III ADGP]
5) THE DIRECTOR
Pre-University Board
18th Cross, Malleshwaram
Bengaluru -560 003
6) THE PRINCIPAL/HEAD MISTRESS
St.Dominic's School
Subramanyapura Post
Bengaluru -560 061
7) THE PRINCIPAL
Prathana School
No.17/17A, Near Kadirenahalli Petrol Bunk
BSS II Stage, Padmanabhanagar
Bengaluru -560 070
[Exparte]
OS.8078/2018
3
8) THE PRINCIPAL
Vishwa Barathi PU Collage
Uttarahalli Main Road
Subramanyapura Post, Bengaluru - 560 061
9) THE PRINCIPAL
RNS First Grade College
Dr.Vishnuvardhan Road
R.R. Nagar Post, Channasandra
Bengaluru -560 098
10) THE BENGALURU UNIVERSITY
Jnana Bharathi
Mysore Road, Bengaluru -560 056.
By its Vice Chancellor
[Exparte]
Date of Institution of the suit : 09.11.2018
Nature of the Suit : Declaration
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 14.09.2021
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 13.12.2021
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 03 01 04
(RAMA NAIK)
VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
OS.8078/2018
4
JUDGMENT
Suit is filed by Plaintiffs to declare the names of Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as "ABHISHEK N", "NARAYANASWAMY", and "SAVITA MARGRET"
respectively and their caste as "ADI KARNATAKA"
(SC) and to direct Defendants to incorporate the same in the educational records of Plaintiff No.1.
2) In brief, Plaintiffs case is that Plaintiff No.1 is the son of Plaintiffs No.2 and 3. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 belong to 'Adi Karnataka' caste. Plaintiff No.3 belongs to Christianity.
3) It is stated that Plaintiff No.1 studied in Defendants No.6 and 7 Institutions. He is now studying in Defendant No.9 College. In all his educational records, his name has been mentioned as "Anthoni Abhishek".
OS.8078/2018 5
4) It is stated that he changed his name as "Abhishek N" by way of Affidavit and requested the school authorities to change his school records relating to his name. They insisted the decree of the Civil Court.
5) It is further stated that in all his school records, his father's name [Plaintiff No.2] has been wrongly shown as "Narayanaswamy Anand" instead of "Narayanaswamy" and mother's name [Plaintiff No.3] as "Savita" instead of "Savita Margret".
6) It is also stated that Plaintiff No.1 though belongs to "Adi Karnataka" caste, his caste has been wrongly shown as "Christian".
7) It is stated that soon after his attainment of majority, he came to know about the mistakes in his school records and requested the authorities to rectify the said mistakes and even legal notice dated 31.08.2018 was got issued to Defendants OS.8078/2018 6 requesting them to correct the school records. Despite service of notice, Defendants did choose not to heed to the request made in the notice. Hence, pray for decree.
8) Summonses issued to Defendants were duly served. Defendants No.1 to 4 marked appearance through III Additional District Government Pleader [III ADGP] and filed their written statement. Defendants No.5 to10 did choose not to appear and therefore, they were placed ex parte.
9) Defendants No.1 to 4, in their written statement, state that suit is barred by limitation as the same has been filed after a lapse of considerable time.
10) It is further stated that suit filed by Plaintiffs for declaration of caste is not maintainable before this Court in as much as this Court has no OS.8078/2018 7 jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of caste.
11) It is also stated that, as per Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the name of the student, his parents and also the caste of student in the school records.
12) It is stated that Plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, pray for dismissal of the suit.
13) Issues that have been framed by this Court are as follows :
1) Whether Plaintiffs prove that the correct name of Plaintiff No.1 is "ABHISHEK N" instead of "ANTHONY ABHISHEK"?
2) Whether Plaintiffs prove that the correct name of Plaintiff No.1 is "NARAYANASWAMY" instead of "NARAYANASWAMY ANAND"?
3) Whether Plaintiffs prove that the correct name of Plaintiff No.3 is OS.8078/2018 8 "SAVITA MARGRET" instead of "SAVITA"?
4) Whether Plaintiffs prove that they belong to "ADI KARNATAKA (SC)"
community?
5) Whether Plaintiffs' suit for
declaring their caste is
maintainable?
6) Whether Defendants No.1 to 4
prove that suit is barred by
limitation?
7) Whether Defendants No.1 to 4
prove that, in view of Circular issued by Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the names of student and parents in school records?
8) Whether Plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit ?
9) Whether Plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ?
10) What Order or Decree ?
14) Plaintiff No.2 has got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.35 in support of Plaintiffs' case. Defendants No.1 to 4 have chosen not to lead their evidence.
OS.8078/2018 9
15) Heard learned Counsel for Plaintiffs and learned III ADGP for Defendants No.1 to 4. Perused the records.
16) My finding on the above Issues are :
Issue No.1 - As per finding ;
Issue No.2 - As per finding ;
Issue No.3 - In Negative;
Issue No.4 - In Negative;
Issue No.5 - In Negative;
Issue No.6 - In Negative;
Issue No.7 - In Negative;
Issue No.8 - In Negative;
Issue No.9 - In Negative;
Issue No.10 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS 17) Issue No.6 : Defendants No.1 to 4 contend that suit has been filed after a lapse of considerable delay and hence, the same is barred by limitation.
OS.8078/2018 10 Plaintiffs, in plaint, plead that the name of Plaintiff No.1 has been changed as 'Abhishek.N' from 'Anthony Abhishek' vide Affidavit. It is further pleaded that soon after attaining majority, Plaintiff No.1 came to know about the mistakes in his school records relating to his name, his parents' names and his caste, therefore, he made a request to the school authorities and also issued a legal notice dated 31.08.2018 to correct his school records. It is also pleaded that as Defendants did not comply with the demand made in the notice, suit is filed.
18) Ex.P.35, 'Hosadigantha' Kannada newspaper dated 21.05.2013 makes it clear that Plaintiff No.2, who is the father of Plaintiff No.1, took a publication in Ex.P.35 to the effect that he has changed the name of his son from 'Anthony Abhishek' to 'N.Abhishek' vide Affidavit dated 10.05.2013. This would make it clear that when Plaintiff No.1 was a minor, Plaintiff No.2 changed the name of Plaintiff OS.8078/2018 11 No.1 by way of Affidavit and got it published in Ex.P.35.
19) Aadhaar card at Ex.P.30 goes to show that Plaintiff No.1 born on 11.05.2000. If his date of birth is taken into consideration, he attained majority in the year 2018.
20) In plaint, it has been specifically pleaded that after attaining majority, Plaintiff No.1 came to know that the names of himself, his father and mother have been wrongly mentioned in his school records and therefore, he made a request with Defendants by way of legal notice to correct his school records.
21) Ex.P.5, legal notice dated 31.08.2018, makes it clear that soon after attaining majority, Plaintiff No.1 issued notice to Defendants requesting them to correct his school records relating to names of himself, his parents and his caste. As the same was not heeded by Defendants, suit came to be filed by OS.8078/2018 12 Plaintiffs. In that view, it canbe fairly said that right to sue accrued to Plaintiffs when the name of Plaintiff No.1 was changed by way of Affidavit dated 10.05.2013; on 21.05.2013, when the same was published in the newspaper; and even after making of request by Plaintiffs with Defendants to correct the school records of Plaintiff No.1 relating to change of names of himself and his parents by issuing legal notice dated 31.08.2018 after attaining majority by Plaintiff No.1.
22) In Karma Doma Gyatso alias Babila Kazi Vs. Mrs.Kesang Choden & Ors. [AIR 2009 Sikkim 6], the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court was pleased to hold thus :
"..... Thus, it is manifest that for the purpose of limitation the relevant Article that applies to the case of declaration with a consequential relief would be the residuary Article 113 and not Article 58 which applies to declaratory suits.
18. It is thus obvious that Article 58 which applies to cases of declaration simpliciter would not be applicable in the present case. Instead, it is residuary Article 113 which is attracted in the case OS.8078/2018 13 of the Plaintiff. However, the period of limitation prescribed under both the Articles being 3 years when the right to sue first accrues (under Article 58) and when the right to sue accrues (under Article 113), the question as to which of the two Articles applies would not be of much significance particularly in the light of the finding that the right to sue accrued only in the year 2005 and the suit has been filed in the year 2006, i.e. within one year of the right to sue accruing. ......."
23) Plaintiffs' suit being one for declaration with a consequential relief of direction to Defendants to correct the school records of Plaintiff No.1 relating to his and his parents' names, it squarely comes under Article 113 which states that limitation begins to run when right to sue accrues and not right to sue first accrues as contemplated in Article 58. Be that as it may. In the instant case, suit has been filed by Plaintiffs within three years from the date of making the request with Defendants to correct the school records of Plaintiff No.1. In that view, there is no reason to hold that Plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, I answer the above Issue in the Negative.
OS.8078/2018 14
24) Issues No.4 and 5 : These issues being interrelated are taken together for discussion. Plaintiffs' case is that Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 belong to 'Adi Karnataka (SC)' caste. In school records of Plaintiff No.1, his caste has been wrongly mentioned as 'Christian'.
To prove that Plaintiff No.1 belongs to 'Adi Karnataka (SC)' caste, Plaintiffs have produced caste certificates of Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 at Exs.P.1 and P.2; Transfer Certificate and Study Certificate of Plaintiff No.2 at Exs.P.3 and P.32. They disclose that Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 belong to 'Adi Karnataka (SC)' caste. Be that as it may.
25) Defendants No.1 to 4 contend that Plaintiffs' suit for declaration of caste is a matter beyond the scope of adjudication. Subject matter of the dispute can only be decided by the Caste Verification Committee formed by the Government under law OS.8078/2018 15 and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
26) At this juncture, it may be useful to refer 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 ಎನದರ 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 ಸಸಖಖಖ ಸಕಇ 93 ಎಸಎಡ 2017 ದನನಸಕ 06-09- 2017 ರನತಹ ಜದತ ತದರದಪಡಯರ ಜಲದಲ ಜದತ ಆದದಯ OS.8078/2018 16 ಪರಶಪಲನದ ಸಮತಯ ವದದಪತಗಹ ಬರರವರದಲಲ ಎನಬ ಅನಶವನರನ ತಳಸ ದನನಸಕ 03-10-2016 ರ ಪತಕದಲಲ ಉಪ ನದಹಪರಶಕರರ, ಸದ.ಶ.ಇಲದಖಹ, ಬದಗಲಕಹತಪಟಹ ಇವರರ ಸಲಲಸರರವ ಪಕಸದತವನಹಯನರನ ಹನದರರಗಸರರತದತರಹ.
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 ಸಸಖಖಖ ಇಡ 15 ಡಟಬ 2016 ದನನಸಕ 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 ಮರನದಹ ಸಲಲಸರವನತಹ ಮಪಲಕನಡ ಆದಹಪಶದಲಲ ತಳಸದಹ. ಈ ಅನಶಗಳನರನ ಪರಶಪಲಸ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಜದತಯ ಹಹಸರನರನ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡರವ ಬಗಹಗ ಸಮದಜ ಕಲದದಣ ಇಲದಖಹಯರ ಸರತಹತತಪಲಹ ಸಸಖಖಖ ಸಕಇ 93 ಎಸಎಡ 2017 ದನನಸಕ 06-09-2017 ರಲಲ ಈ ಕಹಳಕನಡನತಹ ಸಪಷಟಪಕರಸರರತತದಹದ-
1. ಮಪಲಕನಡ ವಷಯದಲಲ ಕನದರಟಕ ಅನರಸತಚತ ಜದತಗಳರ ಮತರತ ಅನರಸತಚತ ಬರಡಕಟರಟಗಳರ ಹದಗರ ಇತರಹ ಹನದರಳದ ವಗರಗಳ (ನಖನಮಕನತ ಮಮಸತನದವವಗಳ ಮನಸಲನತ) ಅಧನಯಮ 1990 ಕಲಸ 4(ಸ) ಮತಮತ ತತತಸಬಸಧ ತದಮದಪಡ ನಯಮಗಳಮ 1992 ರ ನಯಮ 4 ರನನಯ 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.
OS.8078/2018 17
2. ಕನನರಟಕ ಅನಮಸಸಚತ ಜನತಗಳಮ ಮತಮತ ಅನಮಸಸಚತ ಬಮಡಕಟಮಟಗಳಮ ಹನಗಸ ಇತರಖ ಹಸದಮಳದ ವಗರಗಳ (ನಖನಮಕನತ ಮಮಸತನದವವಗಳ ಮನಸಲನತ) ಅಧನಯಮ 1990 ಕದಯದಯನತಹ ತಹಶಪಲದದರರರ ಜದತ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕಗಳನರನ ನಪಡರವ ಅಧಕದರ ಹಹತನದರರತದತರಹ ಮತರತ ಜದತ ಪಕಮದಣ ಪತಕ ನಪಡರವ ಮರನಚಹ ತಹಶಪಲದದರರರ ಶದಲದ 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 ವನಸಲನತ ಕನಯದ 1990 ಕಲಸ 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 OS.8078/2018 18 ಜದತಯಪ ನಹನಜ ಎನದರ ಪರಗಣಸಲರ ಸದಧದವದಗರವರದಲಲ. "
27) In Dharmanna S/o. Melagineppa Sharegar vs. The Deputy Commissioner [RSA 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. "
OS.8078/2018 19
28) 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 1574/2016 dated 01.12.2016). In both judgments, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to observe 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 OS.8078/2018 20 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 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."
OS.8078/2018 21
29) 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 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 this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by Plaintiffs relating to declaration of caste of Plaintiffs; accordingly, I answer the above issues. 30) Issue No.7 : Defendants No.1 to 4 contend that in view of the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, it is not permissible to change the names of student and parents in school records.
OS.8078/2018 22
31) In Gunda Naika P.S. vs. The State of Karnataka and others [RFA No.322/2013 (DEC), decided on 10.12.2013], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold that "The only pre-requirement for effecting the change of name in the educational records by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions is the obtaining of the decree from the competent Civil Court". Para-12 of the Judgment (supra) reads as follows :
"12. The trial court's reasoning that the appellant has not followed the procedure prescribed by the State and the Central Government is also not tenable. The respondents are in no position to point out any statutory provision or rule or Government order or circular prescribing the procedure for the change of name. On the other hand, the perusal of the circular dated 02/05/2000, shows that, the only pre-requirement for effecting the change of name in the educational records by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions is the obtaining of the decree by the applicant at the hands of the Competent Civil Court".
32) In Smt.Dorasanamma vs. State of Karnataka (RFA No.284/2014 (DEC) decided on 02.09.2016), the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold that there need not be a OS.8078/2018 23 mistake in furnishing the name while admitting into the Educational Institution and the name can be changed according to the wish of the candidate. Para-9 of the Judgment (supra) reads thus :
"9. The appellant filed a suit seeking for declaration, declaring her changed name as Divya.G instead of Dorasanamma. The change of Name Act provides that name of a student up to secondary level also can be changed by getting judgment and decree from the jurisdictional court. Without the decree passed by the Competent court, the name cannot be changed in the school records. When the student attains majority and if he/she has an intention to change his/her name, the intention must be disclosed through an affidavit sworn to before the Court Officer/Notary or Magistrate in a Stamp Paper of Rs.20/- and the same has to be published in two leading news papers to make known to the general public regarding change of name. So far as student is concerned, change of name in the school records is done only on furnishing the judgment and decree by the competent Civil Court. In view of that, the appellant filed a suit seeking for declaration to declare her name as Divya.G as provided under the Change of Name Act. The reasons assigned by the trial court to dismiss the suit is contrary to the change of Name Act. There need not be a mistake in furnishing the name while admitting into the Educational Institution. The name can be changed according to the wish of the candidate. The change of Name Act provides for the same. In the instant case, none of the respondents objected for change of name. The necessary documents with regard to swearing of the affidavit in a stamp paper before the competent authority and also two paper publications OS.8078/2018 24 made available to the court. Hence, the question of dismissing the suit for change of name is contrary to law".
(underlined by me)
33) Thus, it is clear that the name can be changed, however, intention to change the name is required to be disclosed through affidavit sworn in before the Notary Public and same has to be published in newspapers to make known to the general public.
34) Further, Circular No.ED100DTB 2014 dated 26-10-2015 issued by the Government of Karnataka deals with the procedures for correction of school records which reads as under :
"01. ಒನದನಹಪ ತರಗತಯನದ ಎಸಲ.ಎಸಲ.ಎಲಲ.ಸ. ತರಗತಯವರಹಗಹ ಓದರತತರರವ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಜನನ ದನದನಕಗಳಲಲ ಕದದಲಹನಡರಲ ತನಗಳಲಲ ಇಲಲದ ದನದನಕಗಳರ ಉದದಹರಣಹಗಹ ಫಹಬಕವರ 30, ಏಪಕಲಲ 31, ಜತನಲ 31 ಇತದದದಗಳ ಬಗಹಗ ತದರದಪಡ ಕಹತಪರ ಸಲಲಸರವ ಅಜರಗಳನರನ ಸನಬನಧಪಟಟ ಶದಲಹಯ ಮರಖಹತದಪಪದಧದದಯರ ಹನತದಲಲಯಪ ಪರಶಪಲಸ, ತಕಕಣವಹಪ ಸನಬನಧಪಟಟ ಬ.ಇ.ಒ ರವರಗಹ ಪಕಸದತವನಹ ಸಲಲಸ ಅನರಮತ ಪಡಹದರ ನನತರ ಸನಬನಧಪಟಟ ಶದಲದ ಮರಖದಶಕಕಕರರ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡಲರ ಕಕಮವಹಸರವರದರ.
03. ಎಸಲ.ಎಸಲ.ಎಲಲ.ಸ. ಅನಕಪಟಟಯಲಲ ವದದದರರಯ/ಪಪಷಕರ ಹಹಸರನಲಲ spelling, Initial, OS.8078/2018 25 .......ದನದನಕ ತದರದಪಡ, ಇದದಲಲ ಸನಬನಧಸದ ಶದಲಹಯ ಮತಲ ದದಖಲದತ ವಹ ಪರಶಪಲಸ ಕಹಕಪತಕ ಶಕಕಣದಧಕದರಗಳಹಪ ನಹಪರವದಗ ಪಕಸದತವನಹಯನರನ ಕನದರಟಕ ಪಪಕಢ ಶಕಕಣ ಪರಪಕದಕ ಮನಡಳಗಹ ಕಳರಹಸ ಕಕಮವಹಸರವರದರ.
05. ಒನದನಹಪ ತರಗತಯನದ ಎಸಲ.ಎಸಲ.ಎಲಲ.ಸ. ತರಗತಯವರಹಗಹ ಓದರತತರರವ ವದದದರರಗಳ ದದಖಲಹಗಳಲಲ ಹಹಸರನಲಲರರವ ಅಕಕರಗಳರ ತಪದಪದಲಲ, ಹಹಸರನ ಜಹತತಹ ತನದಹಯ ಹಹಸರರ, ಕರಟರನಬದ ಹಹಸರರ, ಅಡಡ ಹಹಸರರ ಮದಲದದವರಗಳನರನ ಸಹಪರಸಲರ, ಹಹಸರನರನ ಬದಲದವಣಹ ಮದಡಲರ ಜನನ ದನದನಕಕಹಕ ದದಖಲಹಗಳರ ಲಭದವದದದಗತದ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲಹಗಳಲಲ ನಮತದಸರವದಗ ಆಗರರವ ತಪರಪಗಳನರನ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡರವದಗ ಪಡತರ ಚಪಟ, ಆಧದರಲ ಕದಡರರಗಳ ಆಧದರದ ಮಪಲಹ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಪಪಷಕರನದ ಸಹಲಲಲ ಅಫಡವಟಲ ಪಡಹಯಬಹಪಕರ. ಈ ಸಹಲಲಲ ಅಫಡವಟಲನಲಲ ನಪಡರರವ ಮದಹತಗಳರ ಸರಳಹಳನದರ ಕನಡರ ಬನದಲಲ ಅನತಹ ಕಕಮ ಶಕದಕಹರವದಗರವರದರನದ ಭದರತಪಯ ದನಡ ಸನಹತಹ ಪಕಕದರ ಶಕಹಕಗಹ ಒಳಪಡಸಬಹರದಹನದರ ಸದರ ಅಫಡವಟಲನಲಲ ನಮತದಸರಬಹಪಕರ. ಇದರ ಆಧದರದ ಮಪಲಹ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತ ನಯಮಗಳ ಉಲಲನಘನಹಯದಗದನತಹ ಆಯದ ಕಹಕಪತಕ ಶಕಕಣದಧಕದರಗಳ ಹನತದಲಲ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡಲರ ಆಯದ ವಷರದ ಜತನಲ01 ರನದರ ಕಕಮ ವಹಸರವರದರ ಈ ರಪತ ಕಕಮವಹಸರವದಗ ಕನದರಟಕ ಶಕಕಣ ಕದಯದ 1983 ರ ನಯಮ 11(1) ರಲಲ 05 ವಷರ ತರನಬದ ಯದವರದಹಪ ಮಗರವಗಹ ಶದಲಹಗಹ ದದಖಲರ ಮದಡಕಹತಳಳಲರ ಕನಷಟ 05 ವಷರವದಗರಬಹಪಕದಗರರತತದಹ. ಆದರದರನದ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಜನನ ದನದನಕದಲಲ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡರವದಗ ಈ ಅನಶವನರನ ಗಮನದಲಲಟರಟ ಕಹತಳಳಬಹಪಕರ. ಒನದರ ಪಕಕ ಇದಕಕನತ ಕಡಮ ಜನನ ದನದನಕವನರನ ನಮತದಸದದಲಲ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡಲರ ಸನಬನಧಪಟಟ ನದದಯದಲಯದ ಡಕಕ ತರರವರದರ ಅವಶದಕ.
06. ಎಸಲ.ಎಸಲ.ಎಲಲ.ಸ. ಆದ ನನತರದ ಅಭದರರಗಳ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತ/ಅನಕಪಟಟಯಲಲ ಹಹಸರರ, ಅಡಡ ಹಹಸರರ, ಪಪಷಕರ ಹಹಸರರ ಹದಗತ ಜನನ ದನದನಕ ಇತದದದಗಳರ ತದರದಪಡಯದಗಬಹಪಕದಗದದಲಲ ನದದಯದಲಯದನದ ಡಕಕ ಪಡಹದರ ಬನದ ಪಕಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ನದದಯದಲಯದ ಆದಹಪಶದ ಮಪರಹಗಹ ಶದಲದದದಖಲದತ ನಯಮಗಳನಶಯ ಪರಶಪಲಸ ಜಲದಲ- ಉಪನದಹಪರಶಕರರ ಪಕಸದತವನಹಪ ಸಶಪಕರಸದ 15 ದನದಹತಳಗಹ ಸತಕತ ತದರದಪಡ ಮದಡ ಆದಹಪಶ ಹಹತರಡಸರವರದರ.
OS.8078/2018 26 ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲಹಗಳಲಲ ವದದದರರಯ ಹಹಸರರ/ ಪಪಷಕರ ಹಹಸರರ, ವದದದರರಯ/ಜನನ ದನದನಕ ಇತದದದ ತದರದಪಡ ಸನಬನಧ ದದಖಲದಗರವ ಓ.ಎಸಲ. ಪಕಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ಮದಲನಹ ಪಕತವದದಯದಗ ಪಕತನಧಸಬಹಪಕಹನದರ ಸದಕಷರಟ ಪಕಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ಸಕದರರದ ಮರಖದ ಕದಯರದಶರ/ಸಕದರರದ ಪಕಧದನ/ ಕದಯರದಶರ, ಪದಕಥಮಕ ಮತರತ ಪಪಕಢ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖಹ/ಆಯರಕತರರ, ಸದವರಜನಕ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖಹ, ಇವರರಗಳನರನ 1 ನಹಪ ಅಥವದ 2 ನಹಪ ಪಕತವದಧಯನದನಗ ಮದಡಲದಗರರತತದಹ. ಈ ಎಲದಲ ಪಕಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ಜಲದಲ ಮಟಟದ ನದದಯದಲಯಗಳಗಹ ಸಕದರರದನದ ಅಥವದ ಆಯರಕತರನದ ನದದಯದಲಯಕಹಕ ಆಕಹಕಪಪಣದ ಹಹಪಳಕಹ ಸಲಲಸಲರ ಸದಧದವದಗರವರದಲಲ ಆದದರನದ .....
ಉಪನದಹಪರಶಕರರ, ಸದವರಜನಕ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖಹ ಇವರರಗಳರ ನದದಯದಲಯದಲಲ ಸಕದರರದ ಪರವದಗ ಆಕಹಕಪಪಣದ ಹಹಪಳಕಹ ಸಲಲಸರವ ಮತಲಕ ಏಕಪಕಕಪಯ ತಪಪರಗಹ ಅವಕದಶವದಗದನತಹ ನಹತಪಡಕಹತಳರಳವರದರ ಹದಗತ ಪಕಕರಣದ ಇತದಥರಕಹಕ ಅಗತದ ಕಕಮ ವಹಸರವರದರ. "
35) From the above Circular dated 26-10-2015, it is clear that school records of the student, who is studying 1st to 10th standard can be corrected at the level of Block Education Officer by taking self affidavit of parents and in that circumstance, it is not necessary to obtain the decree from the Civil Court. After SSLC, it is mandatory to obtain decree from the Civil Court for correction of school records.
In that view, there is no significance in the contention of Defendants No.1 to 4 that there is no provision to change the names of the student and OS.8078/2018 27 parents in school records. Accordingly, I answer the above issue in the negative.
36) Issues No.1 to 3, 8 and 9 : Plaintiffs' case is that Plaintiff No.1 is the son of Plaintiffs No.2 and
3. Plaintiff No.3 belongs to Christianity.
It is contended that in the school records of Plaintiff No.1, the name of Plaintiff No.1 has been recorded as "Anthony Abhishek" instead of 'Abhishek N'; Plaintiff No.2 as "Narayanaswamy Anand" instead of 'Narayanaswamy'; and Plaintiff No.3 as "Savita" instead of 'Savita Margret'.
37) Plaintiff No.2 has deposed as PW.1 reiterating the facts stated in the plaint. Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs are at Exs.P.1 to P.35.
38) Exs.P.1 and P.2 are caste certificates of Plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Ex.P.1 disclose that the name of Plaintiff No.1 is 'Abhishek N' and his father's OS.8078/2018 28 name is 'Narayanaswamy' [Plaintiff No.2]. Ex.P.2 makes it clear that the name of Plaintiff No.2 is 'Narayanaswamy'.
39) Ex.P.3 is Transfer Certificate of Plaintiff No.2. It makes it clear that the name of Plaintiff No.2 is 'Narayanaswamy M'. Ex.P.4, SSLC examination Admission Ticket, which belongs to Plaintiff No.2 and same goes to show that the name of Plaintiff No.2 is "Narayanaswamy".
40) Exs.P.25 to P.28 are Election Identity card, Aadhaar Card, Canara Bank Pass Book and Driving Licence of Plaintiff No.2, wherein, the name of Plaintiff No.2 is shown as 'Narayanaswamy'.
41) Ex.P.29 is Ration Card wherein the names of Plaintiff No.1 is shown as 'Abhishek N', Plaintiff No.2 as 'Narayanaswamy' and Plaintiff No.3 as 'Savitha Narayana Swamy'.
OS.8078/2018 29
42) Ex.P.32 is study certificate of Plaintiff No.2. It goes to show that the name of Plaintiff No.2 is 'Narayanaswamy'.
43) Exs.P.30 and P.31 are Aadhaar card and Canara Bank Pass Book of Plaintiff No.1. They mention the name of Plaintiff No.1 as 'Abhishek N'.
44) Ex.P.35 is 'Hosadigantha' Kannada newspaper, wherein, the change of name of Plaintiff No.1 has been published.
45) Exs.P.33 and P.34 are certified copies of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5971/2013, which is filed by Kumari Maria Manusha, for declaration of her name and caste.
46) Above documents make it clear that the names of Plaintiff No.1 is "Abhishek N", Plaintiff No.2 is "Narayanaswamy" and Plaintiff No.3 is 'Savitha.
OS.8078/2018 30
47) It is further clear that the name of Plaintiff No.1 has been changed from 'Anthony Abhishek' to "Abhishek N".
48) Suit is filed by Plaintiffs to correct the school records of Plaintiff No.1. However, no school records of Plaintiff No.1 have been produced to say that the name of Plaintiff No.1 has been mentioned as 'Anthony Abhishek' in the school records of Plaintiff No.1. Similarly, there are no documents to say that the names of Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 have been mentioned in school records of Plaintiff No.1 as 'Narayanaswamy Anand' and 'Savita'. Also, no documents are available to say that the name of Plaintiff No.3 is 'Savita Margret'.
49) PW.1 has been cross examined to the effect that whether school records of Plaintiff No.1 have been produced by Plaintiffs. He has deposed that he has filed suit for correction of the names of himself, OS.8078/2018 31 his wife and son and for correction of caste of his son in the school records of his son. He has further deposed that the name of his son has been recorded as 'Anthony Abhishek' in his school records. Similarly, he has deposed that his name and his wife's name have been recorded in the school records of his son as 'Narayanaswamy Anand' and 'Savita Margret'. He has further deposed that his son completed degree education. He has also deposed that there is no impediment to produce the Transfer Certificate of his son.
50) Except the pleadings and oral assertion of PW.1, no school records of Plaintiff No.1 are available on record to hold that the names of Plaintiffs have been mentioned in the school records of Plaintiff No.1 as 'Anthony Abhishek', 'Narayanaswamy' and 'Savita Margret' respectively. On the other hand, Plaintiffs have withheld the school records in respect of which the correction is OS.8078/2018 32 sought for. In absence of such records, it cannot be said that the names of Plaintiffs have been mentioned in the school records of Plaintiff No.1 as 'Anthony Abhishek', 'Narayanaswamy' and 'Savita Margret' respectively. At the most, from the documents produced by Plaintiffs, it can be said that the names of Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are 'Abhishek N', 'Narayanaswamy' and 'Savitha Narayana Swamy'. In that view, it can be fairly said that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that their names have been wrongly mentioned in school records of Plaintiff No.1, and therefore, the question of granting the relief as sought for does not arise, accordingly, I answer the above issues.
51) Issue No.10 : For foregoing discussion and findings on Issues No.1 to 9, I pass the following :
OS.8078/2018 33 ORDER (1) Suit of Plaintiffs 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 13th day of December 2021) (RAMA NAIK) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City OS.8078/2018 34 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Sri.Narayanaswamy, dtd.14.09.2021
(b) Defendants side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Caste Certificate of Plaintiff No.1 Ex.P.2 Caste Certificate of Plaintiff No.2 Ex.P.3 Transfer Certificate of Plaintiff No.2 Ex.P.4 SSLC Examination Admission Ticket of Plaintiff No.2 Ex.P.5 Office copy of legal notice dtd.31.08.2018 Ex.P.6 To Postal Receipts Ex.P.15 Ex.P.16 to Postal Acknowledgments Ex.P.23 Ex.P.24 Unserved RPAD Cover Ex.P.24(a) Original Notice dtd.31.08.2018 Ex.P.25 Notary attested copy of Voter ID card of PW.1 (Plaintiff No.2) Ex.P.26 Notary attested copy of Aadhaar Card of PW.1 (Plaintiff No.2) Ex.P.27 Notary attested copy of Canara Bank Pass Book of PW.1 (Plaintiff No.2) OS.8078/2018 35 Ex.P.28 Notary attested copy of Driving License of PW.1 (Plaintiff No.2) Ex.P.29 Notary attested copy of Ration Card Ex.P.30 Notary attested copy of Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.1 Ex.P.31 Notary attested copy of Canara Bank Pass book of Plaintiff No.1 Ex.P.32 Notary attested copy of Study Certificate of PW.1 (Plaintiff No.2) Ex.P.33 Certified copy of judgment dtd.22.11.2013 in OS No.5971/2013 Ex.P.34 Certified copy of decree dtd.22.11.2013 in OS No.5971/2013 Ex.P.35 'Hosadigantha' Kannada newspaper dtd.21.05.2013
(b) Defendants side : N I L VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City