Veerabhadrappa S/O. Sannairappa ... vs The Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 2568 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

      REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100151 OF 2014 (DEC)

BETWEEN
VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. SANNAIRAPPA KUMBAR
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O. HANGARAGI, TQ: BADAMI
DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN-587201.
                                                ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      R/BY STATE OF KARNATAKA
      NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT,
      PIN-587103.

2.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
      PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
      NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT,
      PIN - 587103

3.    THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
      BADAMI, BAGALKOT-587201.

4.    THE HEAD MASTER,
      GOVT. KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY
      SCHOOL, HANGARAGI,
      TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT

5.    THE HEAD MASTER
      KATAGERI VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA
      HIGH SCHOOL, KATAGERI,
      TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT
                                    2




                                                       ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE   JUDGEMENT    &   DECREE      DATED       02.12.2013   PASSED   IN
R.A.NO.29/2012 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BADAMI,
REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.06.2012 AND
THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO.164/2009 PASSED BY THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BADAMI BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND
DECREE THE SUIT.


      THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                            JUDGMENT

The captioned regular second appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful plaintiff, who is questioning the divergent

findings recorded by the First Appellate Court in

R.A.No.29/2012 wherein it allowed the appeal filed by the

respondent-state and dismissed the suit filed by the

appellant-plaintiff.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration to declare

that he belongs to Hindu-Kumbar caste and also sought for

mandatory injunction against the respondent-state

directing the respondent authorities by way of mandatory

injunction to correct the caste of the appellant-plaintiff in

his school records as Hindu-Kumbar. The Trial Court has

allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by

the said judgment of the Trial Court, the respondent-state

has preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court.

The First Appellate Court on reappreciation of oral and

documentary evidence on record, has come to the

conclusion that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to

declare the caste of any person. On these set of reasons,

the First Appellate Court has proceeded to allow the appeal

filed by the respondent-state and consequently suit filed

by the plaintiff was dismissed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-plaintiff. Perused the judgment under challenge.

4. The appellant-plaintiff is seeking the relief of

declaration to declare that he belongs to the caste of

Hindu-Kumbar and also for consequential relief of

mandatory injunction against the school authorities, who

are respondents herein to make appropriate corrections in

the school records of the plaintiff. It is a trite law that the

controversy in regard to caste cannot be adjudicated

before the Civil Court. The First Appellate Court having

taken note of the prayer sought in the plaint has rightly

come to the conclusion that the Trial Court has erred in

decreeing the suit of the plaintiff though the Civil Court

has no jurisdiction to declare the caste of any person. This

Court while dealing with similar matter in a case reported

in Government of Karnataka by Deputy

Commissioner v. Shilpa Barodagi and another1 held

that civil Court has no jurisdiction as there is a inhibition

under Section 9 of CPC. There are no pleadings as to

whether appellant belongs to Backward Castes or

Scheduled Tribes. The effect of such declaration would be

as good as including this person within the purview of

Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes which is specifically

ILR 2014 KAR 5389

prohibited under Article 366 (24) and (25) of the

Constitution of India as held by Apex Court in the case of

State of Tamil Nadu v. A Guruswamy2. Therefore, I do

not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed

by the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law

is involved in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal

being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. However, the

judgment rendered by this Court would not come in the

way of the appellant-plaintiff in seeking appropriate

remedy in the manner known to law.

5. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending

interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for

consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

SD/-

JUDGE YAN