The High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by a plaintiff challenging the dismissal of her suit seeking a declaration and mandatory injunction to rectify her nephew's caste in school records. The court held that civil courts lack jurisdiction over caste disputes.
The appeal was dismissed with no substantial question of law arising.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1715 OF 2016 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
RATHNAMMA W/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O GUNDERE, GUNDEREKAVAL HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHASHIDHARA R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.ANUKANKSHA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3 R.4 TO R.8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.06.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.27/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., THIRTHAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.04.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.194/2013 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC., THIRTHAHALLI AMD ETC.
NC: 2023:KHC:41795 RSA No. 1715 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who has questioned the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and for mandatory injunction is dismissed by both the Courts.
referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff claims that caste of her nephew is shown as 'Hindu Bellava' instead of 'Bovi' in the school certificate. Therefore, a declaration is sought to declare that her nephew i.e., Shivaprasad K.T belongs to 'Bovi' caste and mandatory injunction is also sought directing the defendants to rectify
the caste of Shivaprasad K.T as 'Bovi' in the school
records.
evidence let in by both parties. Perused the judgments rendered by both the Courts on merits. On examining the materials on record, the trial Court held that plaintiff has failed to substantiate that her nephew i.e., Shivaprasad K.T belongs to a 'Bovi' Caste and consequently, suit is dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.27/2014.
evidence on record was also not inclined to interfere with the conclusions recorded by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court, however, held that present suit is not maintainable as the aggrieved party is not before the Court. The plaintiff, who claims to be younger sister of late Thippe Swami, has filed this present suit seeking rectification of her nephew's caste as 'Bovi' in the school records. The
Appellate Court was of the view that if aggrieved party namely Shivaprasad K.T is not before this Court, the present suit filed by the plaintiff on behalf of aggrieved party is not maintainable. While examining the merits of the case, the Appellate Court was also of the view that no documents are produced to substantiate that plaintiff's brother namely Thippeswami belongs to 'Bovi' caste. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
plaintiff and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents.
questioning the locus of the plaintiff, has also placed reliance on the following judgments.
1. KUMARI MADHURI PATIL AND ANOTHER VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (1994)6 SCC 241.
NC: 2023:KHC:41795 RSA No. 1715 of 2016
2. DAYARAM VS. SUDHIR BATHAM AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (2012) 1 SCC 333.
3. STATE OF T.N. AND OTHERS VS. A.GURUSAMY REPORTED IN (1997) 3 SCC 542.
the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that plaintiff, even otherwise, could not have maintained a
suit before the Civil Court. Referring to the above cited judgments, she would point out that any dispute in regard to caste is not maintainable before the Civil Courts. Referring to these judgments, she would point out that issue relating to caste cannot be ventilated before Civil Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:41795 RSA No. 1715 of 2016
otherwise, if the said K.T.Shiva Prasad is really aggrieved by the caste indicated in the school records, then he has efficacious remedy before the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
has no jurisdiction to grant caste declaration and as such, the same is hit by Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments Etc.) Act, 1990, a Committee is constituted to verify the income as well as the Caste.
Therefore, no substantial question of law arises
for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to grant a declaration regarding an individual's caste.
Whether an appeal against the dismissal of a suit seeking rectification of caste in school records is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RATHNAMMA W/O NAGARAJAPPA
CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF KARNATAKA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
