Dismissed¶56

Nanjundappa v. the State Ofkarnataka

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2025WP/6194/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Birth certificate correction/removal of father's name; paternity as disputed question of fact; maintainability of writ petition; mandamus to municipal corporation; alternative remedy before Civil Court; requisition dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure-E); legal notice dated 26.02.2022 (Annexure-F); Nandish Gowda B.N.; Smt. Rajani; City Municipal Corporation Chikkaballapur; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; dismissed with liberty; Justice R. Nataraj; High Court of Karnataka; NC: 2025:KHC:48204; WP No. 6194 of 2022 (LB-RES).

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. ¶56

Nanjundappa Vs the State Ofkarnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (City Municipal Corporation, Chikkaballapur) can be directed by writ of mandamus to consider the petitioner's requisition dated 11.02.2016 and remove the petitioner's name as father from the birth certificate of Nandish Gowda B.N. dated 28.01.2016. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Consequently, no direction can be issued to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's request for correction of the name of the father of respondent No.3's child in the birth certificate.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

The question whether the petitioner is the father of respondent No.3's child cannot be gone into by respondent No.2; the petitioner must establish it before the Civil Court.

¶55

Key takeaways

Any observations made in the order are only for the limited purpose of considering the writ petition and shall not come in the way of any Court deciding the dispute.obiter¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus to the City Municipal Corporation, Chikkaballapur (respondent No.2) to consider the petitioner's requisition dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure-E) and legal notice dated 26.02.2022 (Annexure-F) and remove the petitioner's name as father from the birth certificate of Nandish Gowda B.N. dated 28.01.2016. Respondent No.3 (Smt. Rajani) opposed, contending she married the petitioner on 18.04.2008, delivered a male child on 22.03.2009 with the petitioner shown as father, and relying on her Aadhaar card, bank pass book and voter ID; she argued the petition involved disputed questions of fact and was not maintainable. Held: the question whether the petitioner is the father of respondent No.3's child cannot be gone into by respondent No.2 and must be established before the Civil Court; consequently no direction could be issued to respondent No.2. Writ petition dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court; observations confined to the writ petition.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:48204 WP No. 6194 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6194 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE DODDANARAYAPNAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O NO 25, BEEMAPURA VILLGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TQ BENGALURU RURAL DIST- 562122

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY M S BUILDING

¶14

BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

THE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORTION CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101 BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶16

SMT. RAJANI AGE MAJOR, ALLEGED W/O NANJUNDAPPA, R/O BASHETTYHALLI (H), CHIKKATEKAHALLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:48204 WP No. 6194 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. L.VENKATARAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SHARATH.S.GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REQUISITION DATED 11.02.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND LEGAL NOTICE DATED 26.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF NANDISH GOWDA B N DATED 28.01.2016 AT ANNEXURE- D AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER DIRECTING THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REQUISITION DATED 11.02.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND LEGAL NOTICE DATED 26.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND REMOVE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF NANDISH GOWDA B N DATED 28.01.2016 AT ANNEXURE-D.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to consider the requisition dated 11.02.2016 and to remove the name of the petitioner from the birth certificate of Nandish Gowda B.N., issued on 28.01.2016.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:48204 WP No. 6194 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The petitioner contends that he is a permanent resident of Beemapura Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk. He is residing in the said Village along with his wife and three sons. He claimed that he purchased the site bearing No.751 situated at Handiganala Village, Sidlaghatta Taluk from respondent No.3 and thereafter, he constructed a house in the said site and let it out to respondent No.3 on rent.

¶32

The petitioner alleges that he later came to know that respondent No.3 was carrying on illegal activities in the said house and therefore, lodged a complaint against respondent No.3 before the Sidlaghatta Town Police Station on 19.11.2025. The respondent No.3 had given birth to a baby boy on 22.03.2009, which was entered in the birth report, which showed its father’s name as Nanjundappa, resident of Banashankari. Later, the birth certificate of the child was issued on 28.01.2016, wherein the name and address of the petitioner were shown as the father of the child. This birth certificate was

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48204 WP No. 6194 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

issued after a lapse of seven years from the date of birth. The petitioner claims that respondent No.3 had managed to get his name entered in the birth certificate as the father of the child. Soon thereafter, on coming to know of the illegality, the petitioner submitted a request to respondent No.2 seeking removal of his name from the birth certificate. However, respondent No.2 did not act upon the request, compelling the petitioner to issue legal notice dated 26.02.2022. Since no action was taken by respondent No.2, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the above submissions and contended that at the time of birth of the child of respondent No.3, the father’s name was shown as Nanjundappa, resident of Banashankari. Therefore, it is alleged that the respondent No.3 has created a birth certificate showing the petitioner as the father. At any rate, he contends that respondent No.2, being the competent authority, is bound to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:48204 WP No. 6194 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The petition is opposed by respondent No.3,

¶41

has filed a detailed statement of objections interalia contending that the petition involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact, as to whether the petitioner is the father of Nandish Gowda B.N., and whether respondent No.3 is the wife of the petitioner. She therefore contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court. The respondent No.3 contended that her marriage with the petitioner was performed on 18.04.2008 at Sanke Anjaneyaswamy Temple and that the Temple Authorities had issued a marriage certificate showing the name of the petitioner as the husband of respondent No.3. She further contended that she and respondent No.3 lived as husband and wife for some time and thereafter, their relationship came to be strained. She contended that she delivered a baby boy on 22.03.2009 and the name of the petitioner was shown as the father of the child. In support of this claim, she relies

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48204 WP No. 6194 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

upon her Adhar Card, bank pass book and Voter ID issued to the respondent No.2, all of which indicate that the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.3. She has contended that at the time of delivery, the petitioner and the respondent No.3 were residing at Banashankari and therefore, the petitioner was shown as a resident of Banashankari. She further contends that she owned the property in her name and after their marriage, the petitioner attempted to grab the said property and harassed her to give the property as a dowry . Respondent No.3 therefore, in good faith executed a sale deed in his favour as she was promised that he would construct a house on the site and provide shelter to her. She therefore contended that, respondent No.2 cannot go into these disputed questions of fact and it is appropriate to direct petitioner to approach the Civil Court.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 reiterates

¶46

the above contentions. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that if this Court directs an enquiry to be

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:48204 WP No. 6194 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

held in to the case, respondent No.2 will abide by the same.

¶51

Having considered the submissions of the

¶52

learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3, it appears that the petitioner claimed that he did not father the child of respondent No.3. In order to buttress this claim, he contends that he was a resident of Bheemapura Village, Nandagudi Hobli, whereas the birth certificate of child of respondent No.3 shows the name of one Nanjundappa, resident of Banashankari. He has therefore, contended that the father of the child of respondent No.3 is someone else with his namesake and that respondent No.3 has attempted to use this to her advantage. However, the statement of objections filed by respondent No.3 gives a different picture, inasmuch as she claimed that the petitioner had married her. In support of her contentions, she has placed some documents along with the statement of objections, all of which give an impression that the petitioner and respondent No.3 are

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:48204 WP No. 6194 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

husband and wife. Therefore, the question whether the petitioner is the father of the child of respondent No.3 or not, cannot be gone into by respondent No.2 and it is for the petitioner to establish the same before the Civil Court.

¶56

Consequently, no direction can be issued to respondent No.2 to consider the request of the petitioner for correction of the name of the father of child of respondent No.3 in birth certificate. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶57

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.

¶58

Any observations made herein are only for the limited purpose of considering the writ petition and shall not come in the way of any Court deciding the dispute.

¶59

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶60

SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Nanjundappa v. the State Ofkarnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanjundappa v. the State Ofkarnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Ramesh Vs Vagata Grama Panchayath

Smt. Sunitha S Pai Vs Department of Town and Country Planning

Halu Utpadakara Mahila Sahakari Sanga Niyamitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Farooq Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr. Jai Kumar. R Vs the State of Karnataka

Umadevi Vs Jayamma