Bangalore District Court
Smt.Chandrakala.M vs The State Of Karnataka By Its on 4 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H.5)
Dated: This the 4th day of March 2015
Present: Shri Krishnamurthy B.Sangannanavar,
B.Com.LL.B.,(Special)
IX Addl. C.C & S.J, Bangalore.
O.S. NO.2637/2014
Plaintiff: Smt.Chandrakala.M, Wife of Lakshmi-
narayanappa, Aged about 37 years,
Residing at Dadaghatta Madagu
Village, Sasalu Hobli, Doddaballapur
Taluk, At present Residing in
Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore-560
106.
[By Sri.S.N.Manjunath, advocate]
-Vs-
Defendants: 1. The State of Karnataka by its
Secretary, Department of Education,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Secretary to the Government,
Primary and Higher Primary Education,
Department of Education, Multi Storied
Building, Bangalore-560 001.
3. The Commissioner, Department of
Public Instructions, Bangalore-560
003.
4. The Secretary, Karnataka Secondary
Education Examination Board,
Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 003.
2 O.S.No.2637/14
5. The Deputy Director of Public
Instructions, Department of Public
Instructions, Bangalore North District,
Yelahanka, Bangalore-560 064.
6. The Block Education Officer, North
Zone-4, Yelahanka, Bangalore-560 064.
7. The Head master, Sri.Viveka Bala
Mandira, Kannada Higher Primary
School, Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore-560 064.
8. The Head Mistress, Jnana Jyothi
High School, Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore-560 106.
(Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 03.04.2014
Nature of the suit Declaration
Date of commencement of 10.11.2014
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment 04.03.2015
was pronounced
Total duration : Day/s Month/s Year/s
01 11 00
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by plaintiff to direct the defendants to enter caste of her son L.Harish as 3 O.S.No.2637/14 Golla instead of Golla Gowda in all his school records.
2. On facts, case of the plaintiff is pleaded below:
She has pleaded that her son L.Harish is a minor and she is mother and natural guardian filed this suit for rectification of mistakes found in school records maintained by defendants. Her son was born on 8.6.1997 at Dadaghatta, Madagu village, Doddaballapur Taluk. He has completed his secondary education examination in the month of April 2013. She and her husband Lakshminarayanappa belong to Golla Caste of Hindu community and they have obtained caste certificate that they belong to Golla caste. However in the school records of L.Harish their son entered as Golla Gowdaru which differs from Golla caste and this wrong entry has to be corrected by giving direction to the defendants that Harish.L belongs to Golla caste instead of Golla Gowda. In this regard, she has caused legal notice on all the defendants but they failed to comply with her request, as such filed this suit for issuance of 4 O.S.No.2637/14 direction to the defendants to enter caste of her son Harish.L as Golla.
3. The defendants 1 to 6 are placed exparte. No steps taken against defendant No.7 and 8.
4. The plaintiff in order to prove her case examined herself as P.W.1 and through her; Exs. P-1 to P-11 documents got marked.
5. After closure of evidence on her behalf, having heard the learned counsel on record for the plaintiff, now the following points arise for consideration of this court:
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for issuance of direction to the defendants to enter caste of her son Harish.L as Golla instead of Golla Gowda in all the school records maintained by defendants in the present suit without making him as plaintiff and the suit in the present form is maintainable?
(2) What order?
6. The findings on the above points are recorded as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
5 O.S.No.2637/14
Point No.2 : As per final order,
For the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: The plaintiff filed this suit on behalf of her minor son L.Harish for issuance of direction to the defendants to enter his caste as Golla in place of Golla Gowdaru in the records maintained by defendants. She has not impleaded her son as plaintiff in the present suit, thereby not followed the procedure contemplated u/o.32 R.1 of C.P.C. which provides for Every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who in such suit shall be called the next friend of the minor. It is therefore, at the very out set, this court is of the opinion that the suit filed by plaintiff without naming her son L.Harish as plaintiff in the suit is not maintainable. In other words to say that such suit is defective suit.
8. It is also to be note here that the plaintiff has failed to take steps to serve the suit summons against defendants 7 and 8 despite grant of time and she simply gave her evidence. Yes ever if the court has to hold that such suit with such defective is still maintainable, since they would be 6 O.S.No.2637/14 curable by providing an opportunity to the plaintiff, still the court has to examine as to the maintainability of the suit for the relief sought against defendants. In the suit, she has sought for issuance of directions to the defendants in the matter of correction of caste in the records maintained by them in place of Golla Gowdaru Golla has to be mentioned. In other words to say that Gowdaru has to be removed and Golla has to be retained which could not be done in exercise of rights conferred under section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, since such suit is impliedly barred before civil court. The plaintiff herein in a way has sought for declaration of caste of her son as Golla and Golla Gowdaru has to be removed is not maintainable.
9. The plaintiff in support of her case, has produced Ex.P-1 copy of Transfer Certificate wherein in column No.11 mentioned Golla Gowda in respect of Harish.L S/o. Lakshminaryan and Chandrakala. At this stage, this court has to opine that merely because Lakshminarayan and P.W.1 have obtained caste certificate from Tahsildar certifying that they belong to Golla caste under 7 O.S.No.2637/14 category-I is not a ground to hold that records maintained by defendants in so far as caste of Harish.L has to be change by removing Gowdaru or Gowda as the case may be from the records. The other documents produced by plaintiff are copy of legal notice, postal receipts and postal acknowledgements, reply of Deputy Director of Bangalore North Taluk, Department of Education are not evidence to hold that plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought in the suit in respect of case of her son.
10. In the matter of case of plaintiff, this Court would like to observe here that records as to caste of a person could not be change by Civil Court. It does not mean to say that Harish.L is not entitled for obtaining caste certificate that he belongs to Golla caste, category-I in Karnataka, for which the competent authority is empowered to issue caste certificate and such certificate shall have to be verified by caste verification committee constituted by Government of Karnataka in every District. It is therefore to obtain caste certificate what the records are there since long ago cannot be changed. At this stage, it useful to follow the 8 O.S.No.2637/14 decision of our own High Court rendered in the recent past in RSA No.816/2006 (PAR) dated 14th February 2014 in Dharmanna s/o. Melagineppa Sharegar vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum and others wherein held that the Civil Court jurisdiction is impliedly barred and therefore, civil suit of this nature is not maintainable. It is therefore, whatever may be the educational records of L.Harish in regard to his caste has to be maintained as they are and by such maintaining records, no harm would cause or prejudice would be caused to L.Harish, if he is really, belongs to Golla caste categorized under category-I in OBC which shall have to be examined by competent authority subject to Caste Verification Committee. Thus with such findings in the matter of relief as to the declaration of the caste of son of plaintiff which cannot be declared by the civil court in view of section 9 of C.P.C. and followed by the decision cited supra, as such, finding on this point would be record without saying in the Negative.
11. Point No.2: In view of the above finding and in the result, this court passes the following:
9 O.S.No.2637/14O R D E R
(a) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed as not maintainable with no order as to cost.
(b) Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the J.W., transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 4th day of March 2015).
(Krishnamurthy B.Sangannanavar) IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
A N N E X U R E List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 Chandrakala.M List of witnesses examined for defendants:
Nil List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P-1 Copy of Transfer Certificate Ex.P-2 & P-3 Copies of Transfer Certificates belong to Lakshminarayanappa and Chandrakala.M 10 O.S.No.2637/14 Ex.P-4 & P-5 Copies of caste and Income certificate Ex.P-6 SSLC certificate Ex.P-7 Office copy of Notice Ex.P7(a) to 7(h) Postal receipts Ex.P-8, 8(a) to Postal acknowledgments 8(e) Ex.P-9 Returned postal cover with notice Ex.P-10 Endorsement Ex.P-11 Notary copy of ration card List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Nil IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.