Manjunath vs The Head Master Jnanabharati Vidyamandir Primary and High School, The Block Education Officer, The Deputy Director of Public Instruction and The Deputy Commissioner

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—This second appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 290/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge, Muddebihal, aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit filed by him. The appellant filed suit seeking a declaration that his surname is ''Agasar'' and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction to defendants directing them to effect necessary changes in his school records inter alia contending that he belongs to a family which has the surname of ''Agasar'' and though at the time of his admission to the school, his father had furnished the correct surname as ''Agasar'', the school authorities wrongly recorded his surname as ''Madivalar'' instead of ''Agasar'' and this error in mentioning the surname came to his knowledge very recently when he obtained necessary certificate for his personal activities after the death of his father and thereafter, when he approached Defendant No. 1-Head Master of the Primary and High School, Muddebihal, with a request to make suitable corrections, it was refused, therefore, he has no option but to approach the court.

The suit was contested by the respondents - defendants on various grounds including the maintainability of the suit contending that the suit is barred by time and the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice u/s 80 of CPC. The trial Court framed the following issues:--

i) Whether the plaintiff proves that, he belongs to the surname of ''Agasar'' as contended in the plaint?

ii) Whether the plaintiff further proves that, the school authority-Defendant No. 1 has wrongly recorded the surname of plaintiff as ''Madivalar'' instead of ''Agasar'' in his school records?

iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

iv) What decree or order?

The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and relied on Exs. P1 to P11. On behalf of the defendants, though no oral evidence was let-in, application for admission to the school was marked as Ex. D1. The trial Court on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, answered Issue Nos. 1 & 2 in the negative and issue No. 3 in the affirmative and consequently dismissed the suit.

The appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Lower Appellate Court came to be dismissed affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court on material issues. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit, the plaintiff is in appeal before this court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the judgments under appeal, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law to entertain this appeal. I am apprehensive of the very maintainability of the suit of this nature.

Section- 34 of the Specific Relief Act deals with the Declaratory Decrees. According to this section, any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled....

In the case on hand, the plaintiff did not seek a declaration as to his legal character. On the other hand, he wanted a declaration of his surname as Agasar'' and not ''Madivalar''. It is brought-out during trial of the case that, the plaintiff claiming to be the son of one Parappa Agasar, an employee of Educational Department, Government of Karnataka, filed application for appointment on compassionate ground upon the death of his father Parappa Agasar. However, the authorities rejected the said application on the ground that the surname of the plaintiff does not tally with the surname of the deceased Parappa Agasar. Thereafter the plaintiff filed suit on 14.12.2010. As on that date, he was aged 24 years. It is not in dispute that appellant has completed S.S.L.C. in the year 2001. Therefore, as rightly observed by the trial Court, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was not aware of his surname having been entered in all the school records. From the records it is clear that the plaintiff was aware that in all the school records, his name has been shown as ''Manjunath P. Madivalar''. However, till December 2010, he did not seek any relief. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the suit filed for declaration was barred by time. If according to the plaintiff, the authorities in the Education Department of the Government have rejected his application on the ground that his surname and the surname of Parappa Agasar differs, it has to be held that the authorities have sought to deny the status or the legal character of the plaintiff, as the son of the deceased employee. If that is so, the proper remedy available to the plaintiff was to seek a declaration as to his legal character that he is the son of Parappa Agasar. However, the plaintiff did not seek such a relief in the suit filed by him. On the other hand, he sought only correction of his surname in the school records. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of me prayer sought, the suit was not maintainable. Nevertheless, the courts below have gone into the merits of the case and have found that the suit is hopelessly barred by time and that the plaintiff is not entitled for such a declaration. I find no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the courts below. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and the findings recorded are all on question of facts. Therefore, this court in the second appeal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and record a different finding. Therefore, the appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.