Bangalore District Court
Master Sai Kiran Reddy M vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2021
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2021.
PRESENT:
Sri MALLANAGOUDA, B.Com.,LL.M.,
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.1525/2019
PLAINTIFF : Master Sai Kiran Reddy M.,
Aged about 16 years,
S/o. Amaranatha Reddy,
Since minor, represented by
his natural guardian -
father - Amaranatha Reddy,
Aged about 45 years, Son of
Ramana Reddy, Residing at
No.500, Unicorn House,
Amar Jyothi Layout,Domlur
Bangalore - 560 071.
(By Gopalakrishna, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. The State of Karnataka,
represented by Chief
Secretary, Department of
Public Instruction, Vikasa
Soudha,Bangalore-560001.
2. The Head Master/Mistress,
Bangalore Montesssori
English Primary School,
No.313/1, 7th Cross, Patel
Rama Reddy Marg, Domlur
Lay-out,Bangalore-560071.
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.1525/2019
3. The Block Education Officer
Bangalore South District,
B.E.O. Range - 3,
Government Primary
School, 9th Main, 2nd Cross,
Gurappanapalya, B.T.M.
Lay-out,Bengaluru-560068.
(Defendants 1 and 3 : Ex-parte)
(Defendant No.2 by Sri K. Kishor
Kumar Reddy, Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 25-02-2019
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 16-07-2019
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 10-02-2021
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 1 years, 11 months,15 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(MALLANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.1525/2019
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration to declare the name of plaintiff's mother as 'M. Vijaya' in the place of 'Amrutha M.' and the date of birth of the plaintiff as '20.6.2013' in the place of '10.9.2003' and to direct the defendants to enter the correct name of the plaintiff's mother as 'M. Vijaya' instead of 'Amrutha M.' and correct date of the plaintiff as '20.6.2013' instead of '10.9.2003' in all the educational records of the plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under -
Plaintiff is the son of Amaranatha Reddy and M. Vijaya. At the time of admission of plaintiff to school, in the prescribed admission application form, plaintiff's date of birth was mentioned as '20.6.2003' and plaintiff's mother's name was mentioned as 'M. Vijaya'. Plaintiff completed his fifth standard examination during the academic year 2013 and when the plaintiff collected transfer certificate of the plaintiff, it is noticed Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.1525/2019 that the plaintiff's date of birth is wrongly mentioned as '10.9.2003' instead of '20.6.2003' and plaintiff's mother's name is wrongly mentioned as 'Amrutha M.' instead of 'M. Vijaya'. The said mistake went unnoticed till November, 2018. Thereafter, plaintiff requested the second defendant to rectify the above mistakes crept in the transfer certificate of the plaintiff, - but the second defendant went on postponing the same without rectifying the same. Plaintiff sworn to an affidavit before the Notary Public and submitted the same before the second defendant requesting to rectify the mistakes crept in the educational records of the plaintiff. Even in spite of that also, defendants failed to correct the above mistakes in the educational records of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 12.12.2018 to the defendants requesting to rectify the mistakes occurred in the educational records of the plaintiff. The notice sent to the first defendant returned with an endorsement 'Incomplete address, Refused to receive in the office of C.S., VDS.' The second defendant instructed the plaintiff to get an order from the Court for correction of the mistakes crept in the school Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.1525/2019 records of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit for correction of the mistakes in his educational records.
3. Since defendants 1 and 3 have failed to appear in the case, they have been placed ex-parte. Defendant No.2 appeared through an Advocate and filed written statement as under -
Suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. The averment in Para 2 of the plaint to the effect that plaintiff is permanent resident of the address shown in the cause title, may be true, - but the further averment that the plaintiff is residing in the above address with his mother viz., Smt. Vijaya and father - Amaranatha Reddy, is not known to the defendant, and the other averment of the said para is true and correct. The averment in Para 3 of the plaint that the plaintiff was admitted in KRLS Patel Rama Reddy Education Trust (Registered), Bangalore Mantesoori English Primary School in first standard, is true and correct, - but the other averments of the said para that plaintiff's Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.1525/2019 mother's name is 'M. Vijaya' and the plaintiff's date of birth was given as '20.6.2003', is denied as false. The other averment that plaintiff completed his fifth standard examination during 2013 and collected the transfer certificate, is true. But, the other averments that plaintiff's mother's name is wrongly mentioned as 'Amrutha M.'; plaintiff's date of birth is wrongly mentioned as '10.9.2003' instead of '20.6.2003'; the said mistakes were unnoticed till November, 2018; thereafter, plaintiff requested the second defendant to rectify the same, - but the second defendant went on postponing the same by one or the other pretext, are denied as false and they are invented for the purpose of filing vexatious suit. The averments in para 4 of the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff sworn to an affidavit before the Notary Public and submitted the same to the second defendant requesting to rectify the above mistakes, are denied s false and they are also invented for the purpose of the suit. Averments of Para 5 of the plaint to the effect that even after submission of representation requesting for correction of the mistakes in the plaintiff's educational records, the second Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.1525/2019 defendant failed to rectify the same and went on postponing the same, are also denied as false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The contention of the defendant No.2 is that while the plaintiff was admitted to school for first standard, his date of birth was mentioned as '10.9.2003' and the plaintiff's mother's name was mentioned as 'M. Amrutha'. The filled-in school admission application form clearly speaks the same. Even in the birth certificate issued by the Panchayath Secretary, Peddagottigallu, Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor district, Andhra Pradesh, furnished by the plaintiff, plaintiff's date of birth is mentioned as '10.9.2003'.
4. On the basis of the above facts, the following Issues have been framed -
ISSUES
1. Whether the 1st defendant proves that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves illegal interference by the defendant?
Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.1525/2019
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction?
4. What Order or Decree?
5. In support of the plaintiff's case, plaintiff's natural guardian - father - has been examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.10 on behalf of the plaintiff.
6. On the other hand, Assistant Head Master in the defendant No.2 school himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.D.1 to D.3.
7. Heard arguments.
8. My findings on the above Issues are as under -
ISSUE No.1 - Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 - Affirmative;
ISSUE No.3 - Affirmative;
ISSUE No.4 - As per final order, for the following -
Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.1525/2019
REASONS
9. ISSUE NOs.1 TO 3 : Since all these Issues are inter-related with each other, they are being taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetitive discussion of facts.
10. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is the son of Amaranatha Reddy and M. Vijaya; at the time of admission of plaintiff to school, in the prescribed admission application form, plaintiff's date of birth was mentioned as '20.6.2003' and plaintiff's mother's name was mentioned as 'M. Vijaya'; plaintiff completed his fifth standard examination during the academic year 2013 and when the plaintiff collected transfer certificate of the plaintiff, it is noticed that the plaintiff's date of birth is wrongly mentioned as '10.9.2003' instead of '20.6.2003' and plaintiff's mother's name is wrongly mentioned as 'Amrutha M.' instead of 'M. Vijaya'; the said mistake went unnoticed till November, 2018; thereafter, plaintiff requested the second defendant to rectify the above mistakes crept in the transfer certificate of the plaintiff, - but the second defendant Cont'd..
-10- O.S. No.1525/2019 went on postponing the same without rectifying the same; plaintiff sworn to an affidavit before the Notary Public and submitted the same before the second defendant requesting to rectify the mistakes crept in the educational records of the plaintiff; even in spite of that also, defendants failed to correct the above mistakes in the educational records of the plaintiff; therefore, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 12.12.2018 to the defendants requesting to rectify the mistakes occurred in the educational records of the plaintiff; the notice sent to the first defendant returned with an endorsement 'Incomplete address, Refused to receive in the office of C.S., VDS.'; the second defendant instructed the plaintiff to get an order from the Court for correction of the mistakes crept in the school records of the plaintiff; therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit for correction of the mistakes in his educational records and hence, the plaintiff has come up with this suit for the reliefs claimed in the suit.
11. During evidence, plaintiff's - natural guardian
- father has been examined as P.W.1 and he has filed Cont'd..
-11- O.S. No.1525/2019 his affidavit as examination-in-chief - in which, he once again reiterated the facts alleged in the plaint as discussed above. In addition to oral evidence, plaintiff has produced documents like School Transfer Certificate in respect of the plaintiff, birth certificate in respect of the plaintiff, study certificate, School Transfer Certificate and Aadhaar card in respect of mother of the plaintiff. The School Transfer Certificate in respect of the plaintiff is produced as Ex.P.6 - which shows that plaintiff was got admitted to the defendant No.2 school during the year 2009-10 with the Admission No.01/2009-10. In Ex.P.6 - School Transfer Certificate in respect of the plaintiff, date of birth of the plaintiff is mentioned as '10.9.2003'. But, in the birth certificate of the plaintiff marked as per Ex.P.7, his date of birth has been mentioned as '20.6.2003' - which date of birth has been registered in the register of Indira Hospital, Tirupathi on 3.7.2003.
12. Defendant No.2 also tendered evidence as D.W.1 - wherein, it is elucidated that based on the information filled in by the parents of the student in the Cont'd..
-12- O.S. No.1525/2019 proforma application for admission, the school
authorities would effect entries in the admission register and other educational records of the plaintiff. In support of the said contention, D.W.1 has produced attested copies of proforma application for admission to school and also birth certificate in respect of the plaintiff - wherein, the date of birth of the plaintiff is mentioned as '10.9.2003' and plaintiff's mother's name is mentioned as 'M. Amrutha'.
13. However, a perusal of the evidence and the documents produced by both the sides, it is clear that Ex.P.7 - which is the birth certificate in respect of the plaintiff registered in the hospital where the plaintiff was born, is an authenticated document which is much earlier than Ex.P.6 - School Transfer Certificate. Therefore, though the defendant has contended that the the school authorities have entered the date of birth of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's mother's name in the school records based on the information supplied by the parents of the plaintiff in the proforma application for admission, since the date of birth of the plaintiff is Cont'd..
-13- O.S. No.1525/2019 mentioned as '20.6.2003' in Ex.P.7 - which is earlier in point of time, has to be taken into consideration.
14. Further, plaintiff has also produced and got marked the documents - Exs.P.8, P.9 and P.10 - which are the study certificate, School Transfer Certificate and Aadhaar card in respect of mother of the plaintiff. In all these three documents at Exs.P.8, P.9 and P.10, name of the mother of the plaintiff is mentioned as 'M. Vijaya' only. Therefore, though in the proforma application for admission of plaintiff to school, plaintiff's mother's name is mentioned as 'M. Amrutha', considering the documents at Exs.P.8 to P.10 - which are earlier in point of time and also authenticated documents, this Court feels that it is proper and necessary to issue direction to the defendants to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff as '20.6.2003' instead of '10.9.2003' and the plaintiff's mother's name as 'M. Vijaya' instead of 'M. Amrutha' in the school records of the plaintiff. Hence, Issues 1 to 3 are answered in affirmative.
15. ISSUE No.4 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following -
Cont'd..
-14- O.S. No.1525/2019
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff decreed.
It is declared that plaintiff's correct date of birth is '20.6.2003' instead of '10.9.2003' and the plaintiff's mother's correct name is 'M. Vijaya' instead of 'Amrutha M.' Defendants are directed to enter the correct date of birth of the plaintiff as '20.6.2003' instead of '10.9.2003' and the correct name of the plaintiff's mother as 'M. Vijaya' instead of 'Amrutha M.' in all the educational records of the plaintiff.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 10th day of February, 2021.) (MALLANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
-15- O.S. No.1525/2019
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Geetha G. 16-07-2019
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Office copy of the legal notice. Exs.P.2 : Two postal receipts. and P.3 Exs.P.4 : Postal cover and postal acknowledgement. and P.5 Ex.P.6 : School transfer certificate of the plaintiff. Ex.P.7 : Birth certificate of the plaintiff. Ex.P.8 : Study certificate of plaintiff's mother. Ex.P.9 : School transfer certificate of plaintiff's mother.
Ex.P.10 : Aadhaar card of plaintiff's mother.
3. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Srinivasa Iyer R. 01-02-2021
4.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Attested copy of the school admission application form of the plaintiff. Ex.D.2 : Attested copy of birth certificate of the plaintiff.
Ex.D.3 : Authorisation letter.
(MALLANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..