J. Praveen Kumar vs State of Karnataka and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.

The appeal coming for admission, is considered for final disposal.

The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and was a minor at the time of institution of the suit. He was aged 16 years and had preferred a suit through his father as a natural guardian. It was the case of the plaintiff that he is the son of L. Javarappa and J. Rajeshwari. He was born on 27.11.1994 and that his parents belonged to Kuruba caste. However, in the transfer certificate issued by the Government First Grade College, High School Division, Bengaluru, his caste has been mentioned as Gowda. It was the plaintiff''s caste that he studied from first to fourth standards during the years 2000-01 to 2003-04 with the defendant No. 7 Institution and fifth to seventh standards during the years 2004-05 to 2006-07 with the defendant No. 8 Institution and had studied eight to tenth standards with the defendant No. 9 Institution during the years 2007-08 and 2009-10. In the transfer certificate issued by the defendant No. 9, his caste has been mentioned as Gowda instead of Kuruba. He has furnished the transfer certificate issued by defendant No. 9 namely St. Mary''s High School and on noticing the mistake as to the caste being mentioned incorrectly, he had issued a legal notice through his advocate on 6.7.2010 to all the defendants, calling upon them to make necessary correction to substitute the word ''Kuruba'' in place of ''Gowda'' and to delete the word ''Vokkaliga'' which was mentioned in the sub-caste column. But the defendants refused to rectify the mistake and therefore, the suit was filed to declare that he belonged to Kuruba caste and sought direction to the defendants.

Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were placed ex parte . Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 were represented by counsel and had contended that the suit was not maintainable and that the defendants have not authority in law to change or correct the caste indicated in the certificates issued. On the basis of those primary pleadings, the Court had framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is Kuruba by caste and entitled for declaration to that effect?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for direction to defendants to change his caste as Kuruba in the educational records?

(3) To what decree or order?

The same were answered in the negative and the suit was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant would draw attention to the reasoning of the Court below and would point out that the Court has doubted the parentage of the appellant and has held that though he had examined is father as PW-2, it was opined by the Court that no documents were produced to show that his parents were L. Javarappa and J. Rajeshwari and that the caste certificate of his father or his mother was not produced and that there was no evidence as to the members of the family of the appellant belonging to Kuruba caste and that the genealogical tree of the family as also not obtained from the concerned and the documents that were produced, were Exhibit P1 which was the transfer certificate dated 28.5.2010, wherein it is found that the father is shown as Indian, Hindu, Kuruba, son of Lakke Gowda and that he was admitted to college on 15.7.1987 and had left the college on 30.3.1989.

But, however, the Court below has held that he had failed to produce evidence as to his primary education as well as high school education which would be of vital importance to prove the case of his father and further that Exhibit P1 which is a transfer certificate issued by the Pre-University College was alone produced and not the SSLC certificate and therefore, the Court has suspected the genuineness of Exhibit P1 and that further the document was not marked through the author of the transfer certificate but was sought to be marked through the father of the plaintiff.

Similarly, Exhibit P2 was the transfer certificate in respect of the mother of the appellant and there were no details of place of birth and even the Taluk and District, but it is only indicated that her father''s name was Goolappa and mother''s name was not mentioned and that she had failed the tenth standard. Even in her case, the Court has found that the plaintiff has failed to produce her previous educational records that would throw light upon the fact in issue and to prove that Rajeshwari family belonged to Kuruba caste.

It is in this manner the Court has sought to negate the evidence produced as the plaintiff has completed seventh standard board examination as well as tenth standard board examination with the mistake and it is only on issuance of transfer certificate that the plaintiff claims to have became aware of the caste and hence, the Court has totally disbelieved the claim of the plaintiff and has dismissed the suit.

The learned counsel for the appellant has now produced additional documents by way of an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, such as the ration card of the family indicating that the appellant was the son of L. Javarappa and J. Rajeshwari, the voter identity card of the appellant himself on attaining the majority, study certificate of his sister indicating that she belonged to Kuruba caste and also transfer certificate of his sister indicating that she belonged to Kuruba caste. The said application is accordingly disposed of.

In the above facts and circumstances, since there is no contest though the respondents are represented, the first and the foremost circumstance is that the appellant was a minor when the present suit was filed. Therefore, it is not by hindsight that the appellant was seeking to establish a case of belonging to a particular caste in order to obtain benefits that may be offered by the State. The Court below doubting the very parentage of the appellant with suspicion, was not fair. In any event, the appellant now having produced additional documents to indicate that he was indeed the son of L. Javarappa and J. Rajeshwari and other additional documents having been produced to indicate that his sister belonged to the Kuruba caste, the genuineness of the claim could not have been doubted as the Court below has done. On going through the material documents with a fine toothed comb, to deny the claim of the plaintiff on the face of it, it does appear that there was a genuine mistake committed and the Court having negated every single document produced by the plaintiff, was not effected. The genuineness of the case ought not to have been viewed in such suspicion. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside. The suit is decreed as prayed for.