The Head Master Vs Akshatha M.D. — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The Head Master Vs Akshatha M.D. — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; the trial Court's decree directing rectification of the plaintiff's date of birth to 04.09.1986 in the school records, SSLC and PUC-II marks cards stands, with the State undertaking to implement the decree within one month.

Issue for consideration

Whether the State has made out sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 911 days in filing the appeal? +1 more

Court's answer

Application I.A. No.1/2025 for condonation of 911 days' delay rejected: the affidavit discloses no sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; Point No.i answered in the negative.

Ratio / Principle

Ex.P1, the birth certificate issued by the City Municipal Council, Sagara, accepted as genuine after State verification, establishes the plaintiff's correct date of birth as 04.09.1986; an entry in official statutory records carries greater evidentiary value.

Key takeaways

The error in the recorded date of birth originated at the school level; the SSLC Board recorded 31.07.1985 without independent verification and the error was mechanically carried forward into the PUC-II marks cards.ratio¶77
The trial Court's judgment and decree directing rectification of the plaintiff's date of birth do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference; Point No.ii answered in the negative.ratio¶78

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal by State education authorities dismissed. Held: (i) the application for condonation of 911 days' delay in filing the appeal was rejected, the affidavit disclosing no sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Point No.i being answered in the negative; (ii) on merits, Ex.P1 birth certificate issued by the City Municipal Council, Sagara — whose genuineness the State conceded after verification with local authorities — established the plaintiff's correct date of birth as 04.09.1986; the wrong date 31.07.1985 originated at the school level, was entered in the SSLC marks card without independent verification, and was mechanically carried into the PUC–II marks cards; the trial Court's decree directing rectification of the date of birth in the school records, SSLC and PUC–II marks cards suffered from no perversity, illegality or material irregularity, Point No.ii being answered in the negative and the appeal dismissed on merits. The Court clarified that the judgment is confined to the peculiar facts of the case and is not a binding precedent or general principle for date-of-birth correction cases.

NC: 2026:KHC:4313 RFA No.2585/2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2585/2025 (RES)

BETWEEN:

THE HEAD MASTER GOVT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL AYANUR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577211.

THE HEAD MASTER GOVT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL ARASALU, HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-5.77416.

THE HEAD MASTER RURAL HIGH SCHOOL HARANAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577416.

THE HEAD MASTER GOVT GIRLS JUNIOR COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL SECTION SHIRALAKOPPA, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577428.

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE SECRETARY GOVT OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD 6^TH CROSS ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU- 500003.

THE PRINCIPAL NATIONAL PU COLLEGE BALARAJU URS ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

THE DIRECTOR GOVT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4313 RFA No.2585/2025

HC-KAR

18^TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM

BENGALURU-560012.

THE PRINCIPAL SRNMA COLLEGE BALARAJURS ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF KARANATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION VIDHAN SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SHIKARIPURA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR., HCGP.)

AND:

AKSHATHA M.D W/O PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.10/4, 6^TH MAIN 6^TH CROSS, BALAJINAGAR HARAKEHANUMA TEMPLE ROAD CHENNAMANAKERE ACHUKATTU BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560085 …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. HEMANTHA B., ADVOCATE)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6104/2022 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4313 RFA No.2585/2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the State assailing the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.6104/2022, wherein, appellants/defendants are directed to incorporate the correct date of birth of plaintiff as 04.09.1986 instead of 31.07.1985.

Learned HCGP was notified on the previous hearing date that, the appeal will be heard on merits as well as on delay application, since there is an inordinate delay of 911 days.

For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration that the names of her father and mother are Dattatri M.N. and Uma S.V., respectively. The plaintiff further sought rectification of her date of birth as 04.09.1986 in place of 31.07.1985 as reflected in the SSLC certificate, school records, and PUC–II marks cards.

The State authorities, though duly served, did not file a written statement. However, they cross-examined the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4313 RFA No.2585/2025

HC-KAR

plaintiff. The trial Court, on appreciation of the birth certificate issued by the competent authority and marked as Ex.P1, along with the other school records, answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in

the affirmative and held that the plaintiff is entitled to rectification of her parents’ names and correction of her date of birth in the school records as well as in the SSLC and PUC–II marks cards.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, the present appeal is preferred by the State.

Learned High Court Government Pleader, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo, submitted on instructions that the State has verified the records with the local authorities and has found that the birth certificate issued by the City Municipal Council, Sagara, indicating the plaintiff’s date of birth as 04.09.1986, is correct. It is further submitted that on the previous date of hearing, the State had expressed an apprehension that, upon correction of the date of birth, the plaintiff may seek employment under the Government. In this context, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit stating that she is

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4313 RFA No.2585/2025

HC-KAR

presently aged about 40 years and has no intention of seeking Government employment. The said affidavit is taken on record.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and on perusal of the records, the following points arise for consideration:

i. Whether the State has made out sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 911 days in filing the appeal?

ii. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Court below directing the defendants to rectify the plaintiff’s date of birth in the concerned records suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?

Findings on Point No.i:

Though an affidavit is sworn to in support of the application filed in I.A. No.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay, this Court is of the considered view that the reasons assigned therein are wholly unsatisfactory. The judgment and decree under challenge were rendered on 17.02.2023, whereas

the present appeal came to be filed only on 12.11.2025, resulting in an inordinate delay of 911 days. Except for making

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4313 RFA No.2585/2025

HC-KAR

vague and bald assertions, no cogent, convincing, or acceptable explanation is forthcoming to justify such prolonged and unexplained delay. The affidavit does not disclose any sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the absence of a plausible explanation accounting for each day’s delay, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to condone the same. Consequently, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, Point No.i is answered in the

Negative .

Findings on Point No.ii:

Though this Court has dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submission made earlier on behalf of the State, this Court had indicated that the appeal would nonetheless be examined on merits. Accordingly, this Court has independently reappreciated the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff.

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4313 RFA No.2585/2025

HC-KAR

It is an admitted position that the State has not let in any rebuttal evidence to dislodge the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has relied upon Ex.P1, which is the birth certificate issued by the City Municipal Council, Sagara, a competent statutory authority. Though during the course of trial an attempt was made by the State to cast doubt on the authenticity of the said document, learned High Court Government Pleader, on instructions, has fairly submitted before this Court that upon verification with the local authorities, Ex.P1 is found to be a genuine document, and the State is no longer disputing its correctness.

In view of the categorical statement made by the learned HCGP, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff, by producing Ex.P1, has successfully established that her correct date of birth is 04.09.1986. The birth certificate evidences an entry made at an undisputed point of time in the official records maintained by the statutory authority and therefore carries greater evidentiary value.

The material on record further discloses that the error in recording the plaintiff’s date of birth originated at the

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4313 RFA No.2585/2025

HC-KAR

school level. Though the correct date of birth is reflected in the records of the City Municipal Council, Sagara, the same was erroneously entered as 31.07.1985 in the school records. Based on the incorrect particulars furnished by the school authorities, the SSLC Board, without independent verification, recorded the plaintiff’s date of birth as 31.07.1985 in the SSLC marks card. The said error was mechanically carried forward and continued in the PUC–II marks cards as well.

On a fresh and holistic appraisal of the entire material on record, and particularly in the light of the statement made by the learned HCGP accepting the genuineness of Ex.P1, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court directing the concerned authorities to rectify the plaintiff’s date of birth do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity warranting interference. Accordingly, Point No.ii is also answered in the Negative .

It is clarified that this judgment is rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and shall

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4313 RFA No.2585/2025

HC-KAR

not be treated as a binding precedent or a general principle applicable to other cases involving correction of date of birth.

Learned HCGP on instruction submits that the

decree will be implemented within one month.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed on merits.

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

PKN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8