Allowed

Sri.P.v.Lokesha v. the Head Master

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2023RFA/616/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal challenging dismissal of a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to correct names in school records. The High Court held the trial court erred in rejecting uncontroverted documentary evidence proving the correct names.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to correct school records was decreed.

Sri.P.v.Lokesha Vs the Head Master — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RFA No. 616 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 616 OF 2021 (DEC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.P.V.LOKESHA S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.57/1, SWANTHANTRU NAGAR, VIRGO NAGAR POST, K.R.PURAM BENGALURU-560036.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. DEVENDRA N.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE HEAD MASTER, JANES ENGLISH NURSERY AND PRIMARY SCHOOL CHIKKADEVASANDRA, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE HEAD MASTER, SRI.VENKATESHWARA ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL K.R.PURAM

¶14

BENGALURU-560036.

¶15

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BENGALURU URBAN SOUTH, ZONE-4, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

¶18

RFA No. 616 of 2021

¶19

5. DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY

¶20

AND SECONDARY EDUCATION THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD 6^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶22

THE DIRECTOR PRE UNIVERSITY BOARD SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012.

¶23

THE COLLEGE PRINCIPAL, SMT.SUNDARI ANANDA ALVA CAMPUS VIDHHYAGIRI, MOODUBIDIRE DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 197.

¶24

THE COLLEGE PRINCIPAL “ ACHARYA INSTITUTES OF TECHNOLOGY” SOLDEVANAHALLI HESARGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 107.

¶25

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (VTU) JNANA SANGAMA, VTU MAIN ROAD VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY MACHHE

¶26

BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA – 590 018.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SMT. K. SHOBHA, HCGP FOR R-3 TO R-7 R-2, R-8, R-9 & R-10 ARE SERVED)

¶29

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25310/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND

¶30

¶31

RFA No. 616 of 2021

¶32

SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

¶33

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

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.25310/2017 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.02.2021 passed by the XIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, for declaration that his name was Lokesha P.V. instead of Lokesh and his wife’s name was Varalakshmamma C.T instead of Varalakshmi in the school records at the place of father and mother of Vinay Kumar L who is the son of the plaintiff and to direct the defendants to rectify the correct name of the plaintiff as Lokesha P.V. instead of Lokesh and plaintiff’s son’s mother’s name as Varalakshmamma C.T instead of Varalakshmi at the place of father and mother of Vinay Kumar L. and carryout the same in the concerned school records of the plaintiff’s and to grant such other reliefs was dismissed by the trial court.

¶36

¶37

RFA No. 616 of 2021

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for 1^st respondent and learned HCGP for respondents 3 to 7 and perused the material on record.

¶39

The material on record discloses that the appellant – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs inter alia contending that his actual name is Lokesha P.V. and that he was married to Varalakshmamma C.T and that they have a son Vinay Kumar L. who was born on 09.03.2002 in SNR Hospital, Kolar, pursuant to which, the birth certificate shows the aforesaid correct names of the plaintiff and his wife. However, when the said Vinay Kumar L. was admitted in Janesh English Nursery and Primary School, Chikkadevasandra, K.R.Puram, Bangalore-36, the names of the plaintiff and his wife were wrongly entered in the school records as Lokesh P.V and Varalakshmi instead of their correct names i.e., Lokesha P.V. and Varalakshmamma C.T. However, the correct names were reflected in the concerned records viz., Aadhar Card, Voter I.D. , S.S.L.C. Marks Card etc.,

¶40

It was contended that after completion of 7^th standard by the said Vinay Kumar L., the appellant went to obtain the Transfer Certificate and Marks Card to join him to 8^th standard, he realized

¶41

¶42

RFA No. 616 of 2021

¶43

that there are mistakes in the school records in relation to the names of the appellant and his wife and the request made by the appellant to the school authorities and to the respondent – Block Education Officer did not yield the desired results, the appellant issued legal notice dated 23.11.2016 which was also not complied with by the defendants and as such, the appellant instituted the aforesaid suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶44

Pursuant to service of suit summons and notice, while respondent No.2 – defendant No.2 filed its written statement, the remaining respondents – defendants did not file their written statement.

¶45

Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-

¶46

(i) Whether plaintiff proves that his correct name is Lokesha P.V. and his wife’s name is Varalakshmamma C.T. but in the school records, the defendants wrongly entered the plaintiff’s name as Lokesh P.V. and his wife’s name as Varalakshmi?

¶47

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for in the plaint?

¶48

(iii) What order or decree?

¶49

¶50

RFA No. 616 of 2021

¶51

The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. However, the defendants neither crossexamined PW-1 nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. Despite this, the trial court proceeded to answer all the three issues against the plaintiff and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree which is assailed in the present appeal.

¶52

The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff.

¶53

In this context, it is relevant to note that a perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the trial court has failed to consider and appreciate the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff, in particular, the documentary evidence at Exs.P10 to P18 comprising of Birth Certificate, Aadhar Card, S.S.L.C. Marks card, Voter ID etc., all of which, clearly establish that the name of the plaintiff, Lokesha P.V. and his wife Varalakshmamma C.T. were wrongly entered in the school records of their son Vinay Kumar L. as

¶54

¶55

RFA No. 616 of 2021

¶56

Lokesh P.V. and Varalakshmi and that the same deserve to be corrected.

¶57

Upon re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that

¶58

the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed as sought for by him.

¶59

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.

¶62

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.02.2021

¶63

passed by the XIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, in O.S.No.25310/2017 is hereby set aside.

¶64

(iii) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed as prayed for by him.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

JUDGE

¶67

Srl.

Sri.P.v.Lokesha v. the Head Master

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.P.v.Lokesha 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

Sathish Kuamr T R Vs Smt. Nagarathnamma

Smt Roopa K Vs Smt Jayamma

M/S Nurture Agtech Private Limited Vs Mr N Mohan Reddy

Sri M Narayanappa Vs Smt Puttamma

Sri Kumara Vs Sri U a Ravi Kumar

M/S Lex Property Development (P) Ltd., Vs the State of Tamil Nadu