Allowed

Vajrakant S/O Manik Shetti v. the Deputy Director of Public Instructions

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2024RSA/5035/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal over rectification of a plaintiff's caste as 'Bogar (Jain)' and name 'Vajrakant' in school records. Holding the suit within limitation from the legal notice date and proof established via school certificates, the High Court set aside both lower decrees and decreed the declaration with directions to rectify records.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgments of trial and appellate courts set aside; plaintiff declared 'Vajrakant' of 'Bogar (Jain)' caste; respondents directed to rectify school records.

Vajrakant S/O Manik Shetti Vs the Deputy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5035 OF 2010

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VAJRAKANT S/O MANIK SHETTI AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O MARKET GALLI, JAMKHANDI-587313. DIST: BAGALKOT

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BAGALKOT DIST. BAGALKOT – 587312.

¶14

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC INSRUCTIONS (EDUCTN.DEPT) K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶16

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, KUDACHI ROAD, NEAR HERO HONDA SHOW ROOM, JAMKHANDI – 587313 DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶17

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER MUDDEBIHAL, TQ.MUDDEBIHAL – 586153. DIST: BIJAPUR.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶19

THE HEAD MASTER GOVT. KANNADA MODEL BOYS SCHOOL, MUDDEBIHAL – 586153. DIST: BIJAPUR.

¶20

THE HEAD MUSTER/PRINCIPAL GOVT. P B HIGH SCHOOL, JAMKHANDI – 587313, DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT DIST (587312) REPRESENTING THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DIST: BAGALKOT

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALI PATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1-7)

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), JAMKHANDI, AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.53/2007, PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), JAMKHANDI, AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PRAYED AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The present second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908¹ by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2009 passed in R.A.No.14/2008 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi² and the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.53/2007 by the Principal Civil Judge, Jamkhandi³ whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking for declaration regarding his caste and name has been dismissed by the Trial Court which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

¶30

The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶31

It is the case of the plaintiff that he belongs to the ‘Bogar (Jain)’ caste since he was born in the said community. However, in the 7^th and 10^th standard

¶32

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’

¶33

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’

¶34

3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶36

transfer certificate and other records, the caste of the plaintiff is wrongly mentioned as ‘Jain’. That the name of the plaintiff in the SSLC marks card is wrongly mentioned as ‘Vijrakant’, whereas his name in all other records is mentioned as ‘Vajrakant’.

¶37

It is the further case of the plaintiff that when

¶38

he sought employment in Government and private sectors, his caste being ‘Bogar (Jain)’ is coming under the reservation quota and hence the plaintiff is entitled to certain benefits. In view of the same, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 15.02.2007 to the relevant authorities which has not been replied. That the name of the plaintiff is erroneously mentioned in the SSLC marks card as noticed above. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for the following reliefs:

¶39

“a) That the Hon’ble court be pleased to decree the suit of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff belongs to BOGAR (JAIN) and not as JAIN and his correct name is VAJRAKANT not VIJRAKANT.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶41

b) Consequent upon granting the above prayer, the hon’ble court be pleased to issue directions to the defendants to rectify his (Plaintiff’s ) caste in school records as BOGUR (JAIN) by deleting the same presently appearing as JAIN wrongly, ad rectify his name in S.S.L.C. T.C. and records as VAJRAKANT by deleting the same presently appearing as VIJRAKANT by a decree of mandatory injunction.”

¶42

The defendant No.4 entered appearance and

¶43

filed his written statement opposing the suit and also contending that the suit is time barred. Consequent to the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

¶44

“ISSUES

¶45

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he belongs to "Bogar (Jain" caste but not "Jain" caste as well as his correct name is "Vajrakant" but not "Vijrakant"?

¶46

Whether the plaintiff further proves that his caste and name are wrongly mentioned as "Jain" and "Vijrakant" in his school records instead of "Bogar (Jain)" and "Vajrakant"?

¶47

Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the reliefs of Declaration and mandatory injunction as sought for in the plaint?

¶48

To what order or decree?”

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶50

The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and

¶51

examined his father as PW.2. Exs.P.1 to P.18 are marked in evidence. Defendant No.3 examined himself as DW.1.

¶52

The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 06.02.2008 dismissed the suit.

¶53

Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred R.A.No.14/2008. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration:

¶54

“(1) �ಳ��ಲಯದಪ��ತ �ೕ��

¶55

��ರ��ವ�? (2) �ವ ಆ�ಶ ?”

¶56

The First Appellate Court by its judgment and

¶57

decree dated 25.08.2009 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present second appeal is filed.

¶58

This Court by order dated 25.03.2014, admitted

¶59

the above appeal and framed the following substantial question of law:

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶61

¶62

“Whether both the Courts have committed a serious error in regard to rectification of the name of the plaintiff as “Vajrakant” instead of “Vijrakant”

¶63

In addition to the substantial question of law

¶64

framed by this Court on 25.03.2014, the following substantial questions of law are framed for consideration:

¶65

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that he belongs to ‘Bogar (Jain)’ and not Jain caste?

¶66

ii. Whether the finding of the First Appellate Court that the suit is barred by time is erroneous and liable to be interfered with?

¶67

The submissions of learned counsel, Sri.Ravi S

¶68

Balikai for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State are heard on the substantial question of law framed on 25.03.2014 as well as hereinabove.

¶69

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶70

It is forthcoming that the Trial Court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved that he belongs to the ‘Bogar (Jain)’ caste and that his name is ‘Vajrakant’ and not ‘Vijrakant’. Further, the First Appellate Court noticing that the plaintiff was born on 02.09.1971 and further noticing that he completed 18 years on 18.09.1989 and holding that the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit within three years from the date of attaining majority, recorded a finding that the suit is barred by time.

¶71

The plaintiff has produced his school Leaving Certificate (Ex.P.1) and his Transfer Certificate (Ex.P.3), both of which disclose his name as ‘Vajrakant’. The school Leaving Certificate of his father (Ex.P.2) discloses that the father belongs to ‘Bogar (Jain)’ caste. Hence, the finding of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff has proved his name and caste is just and proper.

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶73

¶74

However, with regard to the limitation, it is relevant to note that the plaintiff in the plaint has specifically pleaded that when he was seeking employment, the concerns regarding his caste was noticed and hence he got issued a legal notice dated 15.02.2007 to the relevant statutory authorities. That since the said legal notice was not replied, the plaintiff has filed the suit on 21.07.2007.

¶75

The declaration sought for by the plaintiff is having regard to the power contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. With regard to the same Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stipulates the period of limitation to obtain any other declaration and states that limitation is three years when the right to sue first accrues. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the right to sue accrued when he was seeking for employment which led him to issue the legal notice dated 15.02.2007. Further, at para No.7 of the plaint, in the cause of action, he has specifically averred that the cause of action arose

¶76

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶77

consequent to issuance of the legal notice dated 15.02.2007.

¶78

In view of the aforementioned, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the suit is barred by time is contrary to the legal position as noticed above and the said finding being erroneous is liable to be interfered with.

¶79

The suit having been filed within the time stipulated under Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the plaintiff having adequately proved that he is entitled for declaration as sought for in the plaint, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be decreed.

¶80

In view of the discussion made above, the substantial question of law framed on 25.03.2014 is answered in affirmative and substantial questions of law (i) and (ii) framed on this day are also answered in affirmative.

¶81

In view of the aforementioned, the following:

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10108 RSA No. 5035 of 2010

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i) The above appeal is allowed;

¶86

ii) The judgment and decree dated 25.08.2009 passed in R.A.No.14/2008 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi is set aside;

¶87

iii) The judgment and decree dated 06.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.53/2007 by the Principal Civil Judge, Jamkhandi is set aside;

¶88

iv) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed and it is declared that the name of the plaintiff is ‘Vajrakant’ and not ‘Vijrakant’ and the plaintiff belongs to ‘Bogar (Jain)’ caste and not ‘Jain’ caste;

¶89

v) The respondents/defendants are hereby directed to rectify the plaintiff’s name and caste in their records as ordered above;

¶90

vi) Modified decree to be drawn accordingly.

¶91

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

¶92

Sd/JUDGE

¶93

SH CT:GSM

Vajrakant S/O Manik Shetti v. the Deputy Director of Public Instructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vajrakant S/O Manik Shetti v. the Deputy Director of Public Instructions

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

Shri.Sadashiv S/O Bhima Dalawayi Vs Shri.Narashinhrao Shriniwasrao Inamadar @

Yallappagouda @ Yallappa Vs Timmanagouda @ Timmanna

Sri. Sadashiva S/O. Appu Saradar Vs Sri. Dhulappa S/O. Annappa Khot

Official Liquidator Vs Rasheed Shahabuddin Khan

Sri Sadashivanagowda Vs M/S Weizmann Homes Ltd.

Babagouda Lakhamgouda Patil Vs Smt Dundawwa W/O Dundappa Dolli