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