Bangalore District Court
Kumari Evangelines S vs The Commissioner For Public on 11 February, 2015
Form No.9
(Civil) Title
Sheet for
Judgment
in Suits
R.P. 91 PRESENT: SRI RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.,[Spl]
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 9th day of August 2012
PLAINTIFFS: 1. Kumari Evangelines S.
D/o Sathyaprakash,
Aged 16 years,
No.214, 10th Cross,
Flower Garden,
T.C.M.Royan Road,
Bangalore-18.
2. Hellen Glory.S.
D/o Sathya Prakash,
Aged 14 years,
No.214, 10th Cross,
Flower Garden,
T.C.M. Royan Road,
Bangalore-18
Since both the plaintiffs
Are minors they are represented
By their father Sathyaprakash
S/o Anniyappa, Aged 39 years,
No.214, 10th Cross, Flower Garden,
T.C.M.Royan Road,
Bangalore-18.
[By Sri M.L.Sudarshan, Advocate]
2
O.S.
No.2665/2012 .
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. The commissioner for Public
Instructions (Education)
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore-01.
2. The Dy. Director of Public
Instructions (Education),
Kalasipalya, Bangalore South Zone,
Bangalore.
3. The Head Mistress,
Sri Sharada Sree Samaja
Primary and High School,
Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18.
D1, D2 - Exparte
D3 - In person
Date of institution of the suit : 10/04/2012
Nature of the suit : For declaration.
Date of commencement of : 2/7/2012
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 9/8/2012
was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
- 3 29
(Ramachandra D.Huddar)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
Plaintiffs 1 & 2 have filed this suit through their father minor
guardian Sathyaprakash s/o Anniyappa seeking the relief of
3
O.S.
No.2665/2012 .
declaration that they belong to schedule caste (Adi Dravida) and
direct defendants 1 to 3 to make necessary corrections with
regard to the case of the plaintiffs.
2. The brief and relevant facts leading to the case of the
plaintiffs are as under:
(a) That the plaintiffs belong to schedule caste by birth. The
marriage of father of plaintiff has taken place with one Adela
Goldwin who is Christian by caste. But, plaintiffs are following
schedule caste. These plaintiffs 1 & 2 are daughters viz.,
Evangeline.S. and Hellen Glory.S. The first daughter passed
SSLC at Sharada Stree Samaraja High School, Chamarajapet,
Bangalore. Second daughter Hellen Glory.S. is studying in 8th
standard.
(b) It is further alleged by the plaintiff that, due to oversight,
caste name of the plaintiffs is wrongly mentioned as Christian in
the academic records of the plaintiffs. They infact belong to
schedule caste (Adi Dravida). Therefore, they requested the
defendants to make necessary corrections with regard to their
caste name. But, defendants refused. Therefore, plaintiffs issued
the notice to the defendants calling upon them to make necessary
4
O.S.
No.2665/2012 .
corrections with caste name. But, defendants have not responded
properly. Therefore, present suit is filed by the plaintiffs. Hence,
prays to decree the suit.
3. Despite service of suit summons on defendants 1 & 2, they
remained absent before the court. Therefore, they are placed
exparte.
4. Defendant No.3 appeared in person and submitted that
defendant has no objection to the plaint allegations so made.
Case was posted for evidence.
5. Accordingly, father of plaintiffs 1 & 2 by name
Sathyaprakash s/o Anniyappa entered the witness box as PW .1
and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and closed the plaintiffs'
evidence.
6. Heard the arguments. Perused the records.
7. The points that would arises for my consideration are as
under:
(1) W hether the plaintiffs prove that they belong
to schedule caste (Adi Dravida) and their
caste name is wrongly appearing as
Christian in their academic records as
alleged?
(2) If so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for
the relief so claimed in the plaint?
5
O.S.
No.2665/2012 .
(3) W hat decree or order?
8. My finding on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative;
Point No.2: In the affirmative;
Point No.3: As per final order for the
following:
9. POINTS 1 AND 2: These two points require common
discussion. Therefore, I would like to discuss them together, so
as to avoid repetition of discussion and confusion.
10. PW .1 being the plaintiff has reiterated the plaint allegations
in his evidence on oath. He is specifically speaks that his birth is
in the schedule caste and he belongs to Adi Dravida community
which comes under the category of schedule caste. But, in the
Transfer Certificate of his daughters, their caste name is
mentioned as Christian. Therefore, he requested the school
authorities to make necessary corrections, but have not
responded. Therefore, present suit is filed after issuing statutory
6
O.S.
No.2665/2012 .
notice. He says that, his caste certificate so obtained shows that
he belongs to schedule caste (Adi Dravida).
11. In support of his evidence, he has produced office copies
of the legal notices issued to defendants at Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. Ex.P4
is the Transfer Certificate of this PW .1 showing his caste as
schedule caste (Adi Dravida). He has obtained caste certificate
from the Tahasildar, Bangalore North Taluk at Ex.P5. These
certificates show that this PW .1 belongs to schedule caste (Adi
Dravida). Plaintiffs 1 & 2 are the daughters of this Sathyaprakash.
Ex.P6 is SSLC marks card of his daughter Evangeline.S. Ex.P7
is the Evaluation report of Hellen Glory. Ex.P8 is the Ration Card.
Ex.P9 is the Voter Identity Card. Ex.P10 is the document issued
by the Slum Board stating that these plaintiffs belong to schedule
caste (Adi Dravida). Likewise, other documents also show that
plaintiffs belong to schedule caste (Adi Dravida).
12. To rebut this evidence so placed on record by the plaintiffs,
defendants 1 & 2 are placed exparte. Defendant No.3 has
submitted her no objection by appearing before the Court on
issuance of summons. So, there is no specific denial of the case
of the plaintiffs by any of the defendants in this case. Therefore,
7
O.S.
No.2665/2012 .
the provisions of Order 8 Rule 5 sub clause 2 of CPC aptly
applicable to the present facts of this case. So to say, as there is
no specific denial of the case of the plaintiffs by the defendants, it
is deemed that defendants admit the case of the plaintiffs. More
so, the caste certificate issued by the competent authority ie.,
Tahasildar, Bangalore North Taluk do establish that this PW .1
belongs to schedule caste (Adi Dravida). He has spoken to that
effect in his evidence on oath. Plaintiffs 1 & 2 are his daughters.
So therefore, the plaintiffs are able to prove that they belong to
schedule caste (Adi Dravida), but their name is wrongly appearing
as Christian in the academic records of the plaintiffs as per the
documents so produced. It requires correction.
13. So also, there are Circulars issued by the Education
Department i.e., through DDPI that if any change is required with
regard to the caste name, change of name, date of birth etc., a
decree of the Civil Court is necessary. This Circular is not
disputed by any of the defendants in this case. So, if all these
factual features are put together, it can be stated that plaintiffs are
able to prove points 1 & 2. Hence, I record my findings on the
above points in the affirmative.
8
O.S.
No.2665/2012 .
14. POINT NO.3: As a result of my foregoing discussion
and the reasons stated thereon, suit of the plaintiffs succeeds
and deserves to be decreed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed.
It is declared that plaintiffs belong to schedule
caste (Adi Dravida). Consequentially,
defendants 1 to 3 are hereby directed to make
necessary corrections with regard to the
caste name of the plaintiff as schedule caste
(Adi Dravida) in the academic records of the
plaintiffs 1& 2 as prayed.
There shall be decree in the above terms.
There is no order as to costs.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment W riter, transcribed and computerised by her, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 9th day of August 2012.) [RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW .1 Sathyaprakash
9
O.S.
No.2665/2012 .
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL.
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 To Legal notices Ex.P3 Ex.P4 Transfer certificate Ex.P5 Caste certificate Ex.P6 SSLC marks card of Evangeline.S Ex.P7 Evaluation report of Hellan Glory Ex.P8 Ration Card Ex.P9 Election ID Card Ex.P10 Document issued by the Slum Board
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL.
[RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, BANGALORE.
...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed.
It is declared that plaintiffs belong to schedule caste (Adi Dravida). Consequentially, defendants 1 to 3 are hereby directed to make necessary corrections with regard to the caste name of the plaintiff as schedule caste (Adi Dravida) in the academic records of the plaintiffs 1& 2 as prayed.
There shall be decree in the above terms.
There is no order as to costs.
[Ramachandra D.Huddar] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.