Karnataka High Court
Mariyamma vs The Deputy Commissioner Koppal ... on 24 February, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAI{_A_ V: ':A.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD_.:__ if 1
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY ();1f«fA»Vi?»"EBR'1EJ;£i.1':'i§;_Vfi'(".'V:.1v(}AV "
BEFoRE=..__ V 4' " '
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE" 3
R.S.A N0. i6E.'g,'_2Co€i'-« BETWEEN: K ' V' Smt. Mariyamma W/0. late Vasarjths; Rargi _ _ Aged about 36 _ Caste: Maczligaj .QCC.:.';'.CC01_l.r: " ' » R/0. Ambedkag" Nag2{1* » < "
Gangavaihi,'"GVang--ayHtl3._i'Taiuk« --. V V Koppai Dist'riCjfi _ ' _ ... APPELLANT [By Sri. VaHrapfaE'éiC1, AND? V " _ 1. Deputy CCmH1iss£oner gaxi ' . _.KCp;:'>ai. Disp, Koppai " {Director of A .PubliC.111l5jt;'uCti0ns Koppel D'Est., Koppai «. h 3, ;ThC'B1s0Ci< Education Officer V Education Department ' 'Gangavathi Taluk Gangavathi, Koppal Dist.
;E A
4. The Head Master J anata Seva. English Medium School July Nagar, Gangavathi.
(By Sri. P. H. Gotkhindi, GA for R}. to R4) RE_S§.:50NE5.IS:N'F3 .
RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF 'IAGA.:INSffId"GeATI§%.~::
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE _D'_I*D. 9.9.04 ?AS-SED 'IN';R;A No.12 /03 ON THE FILE or 'rHi«:_ CIVIL.' JUD'GE"~._{Sva.. DN.), = ' GANGAVATHI, ALLOWING THE__"AIéPEAL. 'AND "SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND-"'*DECR'F§E DTD....2.S'.08.2003 PASSED {N OS I\Io.12«--,r_0jS C7-N f1'1?~lE.__'1?_lLE or THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.), GrI1\2'G.»w'A.IrIa1I;r'-. --. THIS APPISAL.CGMING..:oNV"r.eR 1'+'I§'.~"I'«AL HEARING THIS DAY, THE CQUR'I§~D_ELI'?JERED f15HE"FeLLowING: _'_l'he i4i"a,1Gpella.ntA'*v_ herein is the plaintiff in 0.55 The"'"Su'it in question was instituted for the reliief_ofddelerlaration and mandatory injunction. The trial Codrt afteriisieohsidering the rival contentions decreed the Suit by itsiiijudgment and decree dated 28.08.2003. The A defendants were before the lower Appellate Court in RA No.12/2003. The lower Appellate Court by its judgment dated 09.09.2004 has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and consequently dismissed the Suit. The i "I plaintiff therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the View expressed by the Courts below is before i' this second appeal. ~
2. The case of the plpaintiff ispthat, vbelloriglitolllp Hindu Madiga caste. in this it islcanltendelldi that her son Gunturi lCl)l7l.Oi'l.1990 at Gangavati also belongs the said son studied at JarialtaLSeval__Eriglilsh'«hlediiirnilpf'School, Julynagar, Gaf1g3Vathi. standard. The case of the plaintiff son to the school, the husband ofthe filled up the application form by others and inthe said application form caste was wrongly rnenltioyiedevpas Hindt1....C'haluvadi instead of Hindu Madiga. It ' i.«si'in.pth_.Vatl context, the plaintiff being armed with the caste cert'ificate'.l--l'issAi;:ed by the competent authority in respect of her' son flunturi Ravikumar and also her husband 2 approached the school authorities seeking for rectification of school records to indicate the caste as Hindu Madiga if "instead of Hindu Chaluvadi. The request of the plaintiff was not accepted and as such the plaintiff instituted the suit. it at
5. The trial Court ultimately accepted the . plaintiff and decreed the suit. In the appeal' defendants, the lower Appellate the judgment and decree of the trial Coul1'tV_has ir:.'Vfaflct:4relieiI:l on the documents produced by and D2 and has observed ttfileoifiithe saididocuments, the trial CourtAV'cou1d'__n:o_t._ the evidence tendered by of its conclusion.
Hence the of the View that the relief have been granted by the trialuCourt.* lower Appellate Court has noticed thatin" fact: the husband of the plaintiff himself has the clas't'e'"'a's Hindu Chaiuvadi instead of Hindu MaCdiga'--a_i91tdi'at:Vt1j.is stage they cannot resile from the same. Court while admitting the appeal on
22.O9L'2VQ¥D5 has framed the following substantiai question of "-"_ia,w for consideration, which reads as hereunder:
"Whether the finding of the first Appeilate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is perverse <£ rs and arbitrary for n.on.~consideration of the material on record in.cludz'n.g the evidence of PW} _an_d-.._C*:.he documents produced by her?
7'. In the light of the substantial lavv framed by this Court, the mannehof ieonisideration"by,___tl=;isAi Court would have to be in .the__ nature" of c-:)n's;idevringz;_i§ the evidence tendered by the parties"'blefo_re below and re--appreciated by the andliinui that light to find out as to whether Court has committed the evidence and ; _ Siiilnlthis Jiacts as narrated above would indicate that '-thedicase of the plaintiff was that her son " Raivtikumariiiin fact beiong to the Hindu Madiga caste but wrongly indicated as Hindu Chaluvadi while avdrn.ivttiing her son to the school and as such mistake had bieven' committed by her husband. No doubt as rightly out by the learned Govt. Advocate, if a suit is filed H for declaration of the caste, the same would be beyond the competence of Civil Court since the appropriate authorities i r:
would have to issue the caste certificate and verification of the same wouid have to be made by the caste Committee after coming into the existence of -fpinéviewt ' of the said contention urged by the learned requires to be noticed in the instanticase. is iplaintiff'r. was not before the Civil Couirtiiseekingithe" to render a finding of fact 'fc)':.1_&_its regard tothie caste of the plaintiff or her son. had relied on the documents certificate of Gunturi in respect of whom the rectification. sc_h'o.Ql . records was sought. The document th'e._c"aste certificate in respect of the husband of the_pia'intiiiff. "it is based on the said documents, that?1Eii'l%1iiiT*i§OLlghimHi'O1' accepting the said document and de.elarinig..that~.the correct caste of the son of the plaintiff is Hittetu and not Hindu Chaluvadi. At this stage itself, the covntention of the learned Govt. Advocate that only eattejsited copy of the caste certificate belonging to the son has M been marked at EXP2 is to be noticed. In this regard, the t Hr said contention cannot be accepted for more one reason.
Firstly, what is to be noticed is that the'pia-intifi"got_tne said document marked in the eV»idenc--e,§? 'At -.th"i itiirne marking of the document, no' objection has been raise_4;1 on behalf of the defendants for the decument. On this aspect, the _,Hon'b1e-A Supreme Court is ciear that if oi"vv,the';_document is not objected to, it to question the said docunient:isubsequenctify. gt Secoriidiy, the plaintiff was cross-
examined the ._(3r'io\,1t'.'.:i?"1eader. There is absolutely no suggestion to V "thev______p,l.aintiff stating that the document »prod_uced«.is«,n'ot__ genuine. One more aspect of the matter is the said contention is taken in respect of theiiidoctirnerit at EXP2, the document at EX.P3 belonging to ,::thc._husband of the piaintiff namely, the father of Gunturi Ravikjumar, the son in question, is a certified copy which has i " "-been issued by the authorities and in the said document, the caste is mentioned as Hindu Madiga. Therefore, these i 4-! documents in any case indicate that the certificates' by the competent authority indicates the it plaintiffs son as Hindu Madiga. If by the competent authority indicates-the_'_'ipartienglarly such event, the suit was limi.te'ci._insoI"ar the the " i said documents and declaring.__:tilf'1vat'the castel_AAas.i§per said document is a particular'Calstgi,étnld'~itht3'Ieafter for issuing mandatory injunction to carryout the corrections'. lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion was not justified in relying on the evidencetif since the materials placed by defendants 1\lo;-in to'l4 indicate that the evidence of the ii"plaintiff-l'ialoVne_ couldmnot have been relied. To examine the e-..sai_Cl\ lower Appellate Court, a perusal of the rna-terial.s~re'lied on by the defendants would indicate that i*.EX.D1..i$_ii:IhE application which was filed by the husband of ""i_tl'ie_ plaintiff and the Ex.D2 is the extract of the Register of admission. In fact, the very case of the plaintiff is that the error appearing in the documents at Exs.Dl and D2 namely, i '9' 10 the application and the register requires to be correcite-tihanvd therefore, the piaintiff was before the trial Court?"
Therefore in that CircumstancieisiiiExsiill and"D_2 in-'any:
event cannot defeat the case of the;_piaintiffisi.nc~e. relief sought for is correction-.Q}"w..wrong ientries itheisaid V documents. in fact, theg:ilaintiff*i1ersei£_to esta"o.lis.ii§ this fact has obtained the extracohof iithgg:-.4;idQf:fii§ssio1i.Vdocument and produced it as is an error as against the. EXs.P2 and P3.
Thereforefif i1i§ep't view, the fact that the piaintiifs Maciiga caste even as per the certificatesiissued b_yAt~hie'«competent authority cannot remain in Ther"efore.,vthe tower Appetlate Court was not 'juis"ti.fieci__in that regard. i"'iFhei '<'ii'4fe.t§tion therefore, that would arise is as to whetherigin such circumstances, keeping in View the dgeciaraticin that the piaintiffs son belongs to the said caste the triai Court was justified in issuing the mandatory 'injunction for carrying out appropriate corrections. it 11
9. in this regard, it is needless to mention as already noticed above, the documents which are at Exs.l?.l",--
D2 would indicate that the caste of the son of:.thce'eep1aintiVff has been wrongly indicated as Hindu' 'Chaluva_duifdvespiteXthe caste being Hindu l\/ladiga as per the.pce:itii'icate' issued ._ Competent authority. The pia_intiff fact_had"issuedi' notice as contemplated. uI1de--riV:t3-ec"tion i80'~0f Civil Procedure Code, see1«:in:g--.thev to carry out appropriate eorrectionspiinidie But the Same was and therefore, in such [a10Dr013riate to compel the ciefendaintsii to C of mandatory injunction. Therefore, the V-.trial'1Cot:.rt in fact was justified and the lower .i"App'ellate Court wasmnot justified in reversing the judgment and fthie trial Court.
10L ~V."pj----'l"h}=erefore, for all the reasons stated above, the questi.on.aof" law raised by this Court would have to be aiiisvyfered in favour of the appellant, which is accordingly eene; In that View, the judgment dated 09.09.2004 passed it the lower Appellate Court is set aside and the judgment A
-"9 12 and decree dated 28.08.2003 passed by the trial Court in O.S No.12/2003 is restored.
In texms of the above, the appeai 'al1€>we¥¢i,* "
however with no order as to costs.
gab