Allowed

Nanjunda v. the Head Master

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2023RFA/1761/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a regular first appeal filed against the dismissal of a civil suit for declaration of parentage and birth place. The High Court set aside the trial court decree and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, citing uncontroverted evidence in his favor.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; suit of the plaintiff decreed as prayed for.

Nanjunda Vs the Head Master — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:46237 RFA No. 1761 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1761 OF 2023 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NANJUNDA,

¶9

S/O MARIYAPPA @ VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT OLD NO.93, NEW NO.7086/159, RBI COLONY, PAPANNA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI PRASANNA D P, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE HEAD MASTER, ST. SEBASTIAN HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CORAMANDALA, K G F, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶15

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, UAS, GKVK, BENGALURU-560065

¶17

(BY SRI B S KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2,

¶18

SRI B S SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R3,

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/DT:06.12.2023)

¶21

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.5806/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:46237 RFA No. 1761 of 2023

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in

¶27

O.S.No.5806/2022 on the file of the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.07.2023 whereby the said suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff for declaration and other reliefs against the respondents – defendants was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶29

The material on record discloses that the appellant – plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that he was the son of late V. Gowramma and Mariyappa and that his place of birth was Papanna Block, RBI Colony, Ganganagar, Bengaluru – 560 032 and for a direction to the 1^st defendant – School to make corrections in the Admission Register and also to direct the 3^rd defendant to consider his representation and for other reliefs. Plaintiff contended that he was the son of Mariyappa @ Venkateshappa and late Smt. Gowramma, having been born on 03.02.1985 and was residing in the address shown in the cause title to the plaint from the date of his birth. It was contended that

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46237 RFA No. 1761 of 2023

¶31

the plaintiff’s mother Gowramma was working as a group ‘D’ employee in 3^rd defendant – GKVK / UAS and expired while in service on 15.06.2018. It was also contended that the plaintiff and his father are coolies and since the request of the plaintiff to grant compassionate appointment was rejected by the 3^rd defendant, he approached this Court in W.P.No.9984/2019, which was allowed on 19.03.2019 directing the 3^rd defendant to consider the representation of the appellant, despite which, an endorsement was issued by the 3^rd defendant on 11.08.2022 directing the appellant – plaintiff to get necessary corrections made in the records pertaining to his father’s name and place of birth and accordingly, the appellant instituted the said suit before the Trial Court.

¶32

The respondents – defendant Nos.1 to 3 having entered appearance did not file their written statement nor contested the suit. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and was not cross-examined by the defendants, who also did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence despite which the Trial Court dismissed the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree which is assailed in the present appeal.

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46237 RFA No. 1761 of 2023

¶34

The only point that arises for consideration in the

¶35

present appeal is as to whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff.

¶36

A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court will indicate that the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the unimpeached, unchallenged and uncontroverted pleadings and evidence of the appellant – plaintiff coupled with the undisputed fact that the respondents – defendants had not adduced any rebuttal evidence, which was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to decree as sought for by him in the suit.

¶37

Under these circumstances, upon re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be decreed in his favour.

¶38

In the result, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed .

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:46237 RFA No. 1761 of 2023

¶43

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 21.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.5806/2022 by the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶44

(iii) Suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for.

¶45

(iv) Registry is directed to draw decree accordingly.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

BRN / SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Nanjunda v. the Head Master

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanjunda v. the Head Master

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited Vs Cosmic Motors India Private Limited

Susheela Vs Superintendent Engineer

Sri K Ramakrishna Vs Smt Rani Barui

The Builders Apartment Flat Owners Association Vs Shri M Prabhakar

Smt. Rajamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Hanumamma Vs Sri T Mahesh Kumara