Karnataka High Court
Sri S J Krishna vs Principal Secretary Government ... on 23 June, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21783
RFA No. 1406 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1406 OF 2008 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI S J KRISHNA
S/O. LATE JAWARE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.144,3RD CROSS
3RD MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560050.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V N MADHAVA REDDY.,ADVOCATE and
SRI. B.M. KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY &
by
DHANALAKSHMI HIGHER EDUCATION
MURTHY 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
Location: High BANGALORE - 560001.
Court of
Karnataka
2. SECRETARY
HIGHER EDUCATION EXAMNINATION BOARD
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
6TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560003.
3. HEAD MASTER
GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL
BELLALE, MANIKANAHALLI POST
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21783
RFA No. 1406 of 2008
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. ANITHA, HCGP.)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED: 30.09.2008 PASSED IN
OS.NO.1167/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL.CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, CCH-5,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff under
Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree
dated 30.09.2008 passed by IX Addl. Small Causes and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.1167/2008,
whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been
dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in
original suit.
NC: 2023:KHC:21783
RFA No. 1406 of 2008
The case of the plaintiff:
3. Plaintiff was born on 6.8.1972 in Shettihalli Village
in Pandavapura Taluk as second son to his parents. He
is the resident of Shettihalli Village. Since his parents
were illiterate agriculturist, while admitting the plaintiff
to the school, instead of mentioning the date of birth of
the plaintiff as 6.8.1972, they have wrongly given the
date of birth as 1.6.1969. The further case of the
plaintiff is that later he found his birth chart/horoscope
wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 6.8.1972.
Hence, he filed the suit for correction of his date of
birth.
4. Though the defendants were served with suit
summons, they did not chose to contest the suit and
remained exparte before the Trial Court.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Trial Court has framed following points:
NC: 2023:KHC:21783
RFA No. 1406 of 2008
1) CªÀgÀ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ 06.08.1972 DVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ ªÁ¢ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ
ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAiÉÄ?.
2) PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ WÉÆõÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ªÁ¢UÉ ºÀQÌzÉAiÉÄ?.
3) PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ªÁ¢UÉ ºÀQÌzÉAiÉÄ?.
4) AiÀiÁªÀ rQæ CxÀªÁ DeÉë?.
6. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself has
been examined as PW-1 and produced 4 documents
marked as Exs.P-1 to 4. On behalf of the defendants,
neither any witness was examined nor any document
was produced. On appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, the Trial Court has answered point Nos.1 to 3
in the negative and accordingly dismissed the suit. Being
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this
appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has
contended that the plaintiff was born on 6.8.1972. Since
his parents were illiterate agriculturist, while admitting
the plaintiff to school, they have wrongly given the date
of birth of the plaintiff as 1.6.1969 instead of 6.8.1972.
NC: 2023:KHC:21783
RFA No. 1406 of 2008
When the plaintiff found his birth chart/horoscope, he
came to know that his actual date of birth is 6.8.1972.
Hence, he filed the suit for correction of his date of
birth. In the pleadings, the plaintiff has specifically
contended that his date of birth is 6.8.1972. The Trial
Court without considering the evidence of PW-1 and
documents produced by the plaintiff, has erred in
dismissing the suit. Hence, he sought for allowing the
appeal.
8. Smt.H.R.Anitha, learned HCGP for respondents has
contended that the plaintiff has not explained the delay
in seeking correction of date of birth and he has not
given any reasons as to why he wants to change the
date of birth at this stage and no documents are
produced to prove that he was born on 6.8.1972.
Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit.
Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:21783
RFA No. 1406 of 2008
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused
the judgment and decree of the trial court and original
records.
10. The point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is:
"Whether the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court is erroneous, perverse and does it
call for interference of this court?"
11. It is not in dispute that he is the son of one
Javaregowda and resident of Shettihalli Village. It is also
not in dispute that in the school records, the date of
birth of the plaintiff is mentioned as 1.6.1969. But the
plaintiff has not explained the delay in seeking for
rectification/correction of date of birth and he has not
given any cogent reasons as to why he wants to change
the date of birth at this stage. He has not produced any
documents to show that his actual date of birth is
6.8.1972. The Trial Court after considering the evidence
NC: 2023:KHC:21783
RFA No. 1406 of 2008
of PW-1 and documents produced by the plaintiff has
rightly held that that the plaintiff has failed to prove that
his actual date of birth is 6.8.1972.
12. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court
has rightly dismissed the suit and there is no error or
infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
