Karnataka High Court
Santhosh vs The Head Master on 18 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14829
RSA No. 100267 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100267 OF 2016 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SANTHOSH
S/O. BALAVANTHAPPA CHINDWAL
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O: ADAVI ANJANEYA BADAVANE,
KOLIWAD NAGAR,
HOUSE NO.21 RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI
NOW RESIDING AT: BIJAPUR BUILDING,
MAHISHI ROAD, NAGARKAR COLONY,
DHARWAD-580001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.G. NANDOOR, ADVOCATE, FOR
SRI S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE HEAD MASTER,
Digitally
signed by
GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA SCHOOL BUDAPANAHALLI TQ: BYADGI,
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Date:
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
PATTIHAL
2023.12.20
10:43:20
+0530
2. THE HEAD MASTER,
GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY BOYS SCHOOL
MOTEBENNUR, TQ. BYADGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
MAHADEV MAILAR HIGH SCHOOL
MOTEBENNUR, TQ. BYADGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
MERCHANTS ARTS AND COMMERCE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14829
RSA No. 100267 of 2016
COLLEGE BYADGI, TQ. BYADGI,
DIST: HAVERI.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
BYADGI, TQ.BYADGI,
DIST: HAVERI-580001.
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PUC EXAMINATION BOARD,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560001.
7. THE SECRETARY KSEEB
BENGALURU-560001.
8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
HAVERI-580001.
9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI,
AT. HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY NOTICE TO R3 AND R9 IS SERVED;
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP, FOR R1, R5, R6 AND R8;
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
NOTICE TO R4 AND R7 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 R/W. ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2015
PASSED IN R.A.NO.95/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, ITINERARY COURT, BYADGI, STANDS DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.08.2014 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO. 140/2013 ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, BYADGI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED
FOR RELIEF OF DECLARATION.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14829
RSA No. 100267 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The present second appeal by the plaintiff assailing
the judgment and decree of the Courts below, whereby,
the suit seeking for declaration to rectify the name of the
plaintiff's father and his surname in the school records was
dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their
ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. In brief, the plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff
studied in the 1st defendant's school from 1st Standard to
3rd Standard from 1987 to 1990 and from 3rd Standard to
7th Standard in the 2nd defendant's school and from 8th
standard to 10th standard in the 3rd defendant's school and
that the plaintiff has completed JODC Course. The case of
the plaintiff is that, in the month of May-2013, when the
plaintiff obtained transfer certificate, he found that the
name of father of the plaintiff is mentioned as 'Bhimappa'
and surname is mentioned as 'Dasar', whereas the correct
name of the father of the plaintiff is 'Balavanthappa' and
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14829
surname is 'Chindawal' and sought to correct the name of
the plaintiff in the school records.
4. Pursuant to the suit summons, the defendants
appeared through AGP and filed written statement,
contending that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
limitation as the same has been filed with considerable
delay and there is no cause of action for filing the suit.
5. The trial Court on basis of the pleadings,
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, his correct
name is Santosh Balavantappa Chindwal and his
father's name and family surname is wrongly
entered in the school records of defendant No.1
to 4 as Bhimappa Dasar?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the
defendants have failed to correct his father's
name and family surname in the school records
of the defendant No.1 to 4 inspite of service of
notice U/s 80 of CPC?
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14829
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law
of limitation as contended in para No.3 of the
written statement of the defendants?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as
prayed for by him?
5. What order or decree?
6. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim,
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents at
Exs.P.1 to P.20. On the other hand, defendants did not
choose to lead any evidence on their behalf.
7. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court is that,
the suit is filed with considerable delay and hence, the suit
is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation based on
the written statement and answered issue No.3 against
the plaintiff.
8. The appeal preferred before the First Appellate
Court, the first appellate Court being the last fact finding
Court ought to have re-appreciated and reconsidered the
entire facts on proper perspective, however, concurred
with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court holding
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14829
that the cause of action arises not during the year 2013,
but when the plaintiff for the first time came to know that
his father's name and surname is wrongly entered.
9. This Court, while admitting the appeal on
04.12.2023, has framed the following substantial
questions of law:
"Whether the Courts below were justified in
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of
limitation, when the suit admittedly was seeking for
declaration of correction of the plaintiff's father
name and surname in the school records?"
10. Learned counsel Sri S.G.Nandoor appearing for
the appellant and Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 5, 6
and 8 have been heard on the substantial question of law
framed by this Court.
11. The Courts below placed reliance on Article 58
the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Limitation Act' for short) to come to the conclusion that
the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation without
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14829
considering that the limitation begins to run when right to
sue accrues as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the
cause of action mentioned in the plaint is at paragraph
No.6, which reads as under:
"6) zÁªÁPÉÌ PÁgÀt: ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ 1 jAzÀ 9£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ ¢:
22-06-2013 gÀAzÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀQîgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jvÁå
£ÉÆÃn¸ÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀgÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1 jAzÀ 9£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ
vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 60 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ CAzÀgÉ ¢: 23-08-2013 jAzÀ F
zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÁgÀt GAmÁ¬ÄvÀÄ."
12. According to the plaintiff the mistake committed
was known to the plaintiff at the time when he approached
the school authorities for transfer certificate. The Courts
below have lost sight of the fact that there was no reason
for the Courts below to hold the plaintiff's suit to be barred
by limitation and Article 113 of the Limitation Act is
squarely applicable to the present facts. The Courts below
have failed to consider the matter on merits and dismissed
the suit on the ground of limitation.
13. Plaintiff seeks for declaration of his name as
'Santhosh Son of Balavantappa Chindwal' and got himself
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14829
examined as PW.1, documents produced in support of his
contentions at Ex.P.16-Certificate of Baptism, name shown
is 'Balavanthappa M. Chindwal' and date of Baptism is
dated 02.05.1968, the former name is shown as
'Bhimappa Chindwal', the trial Court and the first appellate
Court have lost sight of the said aspect and have
erroneously dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as barred by
limitation and the respondents other than only filing
written statement has not come forward to deny the actual
change that was sought for by the plaintiff and the
reasoning of the Courts below to hold that there is no
cause of action to file the suit warrants interference and
accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in
favour of the appellant and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. The regular second appeal is allowed and
remanded.
ii. The judgment and decree of the Courts
below are set-aside. Matter is remitted
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14829
back to the Trial Court to consider the
matter afresh on merits in accordance with
law.
iii. Suit of the plaintiff is held to be within
limitation.
iv. All other contentions are kept open to be
urged before the Trial court. This Court has
not expressed any merits or demerits of this
case; Any observation made is only in
regard to considering of this appeal.
v. The Trial Court to afford sufficient and
reasonable opportunity to both the parties
and consider the matter on merits in
accordance with law.
vi. The parties to appear before the Trial Court
on 15.01.2024 without waiting any further
notice from the Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
EM, CT: UMD
