Allowed

Sri Srujan Gowda G v. the Block Education Officer

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023RFA/319/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This regular first appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit seeking correction of a minor's name in school records. The High Court held the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit when evidence was uncontroverted, set aside the judgment, and decreed the suit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree dated 03.03.2022 are set aside, and the suit of the appellant is decreed as sought.

Sri Srujan Gowda G Vs the Block Education Officer — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43799 RFA No. 319 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.319 OF 2023 (DEC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SRUJAN GOWDA G, S/O GIRISH H S, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, REP BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI. GIRISH H S, S/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.84, 12^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA P., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, MASTI RANGA MANDIRA BUILDING, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, SHANKARAPURAM (NEAR POLICE STATION) BENGALURU - 560 004

¶11

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE HEAD MASTER, SISTER MOTHER TERESA SCHOOL, NO.28, 5^TH MAIN, OPP. JALAGERAMMA TEMPLE, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050. AND ALSO AT NO.661, 4^TH CROSS, 50 FT. ROAD, BSK 3^RD STAGE, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 050

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/DT: 21/11/2023.)

¶15

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.6551 / 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:43799 RFA No. 319 of 2023

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.6551/2021 by the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing the respondents – defendants to correct the name of appellant – plaintiff as ‘Shripal Sanath G.’ instead of ‘Srujan Gowda G.’ in the records, study certificates, etc., of the respondents and for other reliefs was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶21

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

¶22

The material on record discloses that the appellant – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit interalia contending that his actual name was ‘Shripal Sanath G’ as per the Birth Certificate dated 30.07.2009. However, in his Study Certificate issued by 2^nd defendant – school where he was studying in VIII standard, the appellant’s name is wrongly shown as ‘Srujan Gowda G.’ instead of ‘Shripal Sanath G’ and despite the appellant making a request in

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43799 RFA No. 319 of 2023

¶24

this regard, the respondents did not take necessary steps to correct the same in their records and as such, the appellant – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit.

¶25

The respondents – defendants were placed ex-parte

¶26

and did not contest the suit. The appellant’s father examined himself as PW1 and exhibits P1 to P5 were marked and he was not cross-examined by the defendants, who also did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence, despite which the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit, aggrieved by which the appellant – plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶27

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that despite the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged pleadings and evidence of the appellant – plaintiff coupled with the fact that the respondents – defendants had remained ex-parte and had not contested the suit, the Trial Court committed a grave and serious error of law and fact in dismissing the suit by improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:43799 RFA No. 319 of 2023

¶30

6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered

¶31

opinion that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed as prayed for by him.

¶32

In the result, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed .

¶35

(ii) Impugned judgment and decree dated decree dated 03.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.6551/2021 by the VII

¶36

Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside

¶37

(iii) The suit of the appellant – plaintiff is decreed as

¶38

sought for by him.

¶39

(iv) Registry is directed to draw decree accordingly.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

KTY / SV

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri Srujan Gowda G v. the Block Education Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srujan Gowda G v. the Block Education Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemalatha Vs Lolakshi

Sri. Rizwan Sharief Vs Smt Maqbool Bi

Mrs Beena Bhardwaj Vs Col. Kulbhushan Kumar (Retd)

Smt Chitra Shankar Vs Sri R Ravichandran

Syed Suhail Ali Vs M R Subramanya

Smt. D. Mariam Priya Darshini, Vs Sri. Santhosh George