Karnataka High Court
State Government Of Karnataka vs Rekha D/O. Channaveerappa Soratur on 22 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13618
RSA No. 100492 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100492 OF 2022 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSRUCTIONS (D. D. P. I) GADAG.
3. THE SECRETARY AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION
BOARD, (UNDER MINISTRY EDUCATION GOVT. OF
KARNATAKA BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.
4. THE SECRETARY/DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION BOARD, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)
Digitally
signed by AND:
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL REKHA D/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA SORATUR
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.12.02
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. GOVT. TEACHER,
10:20:29
+0530
R/O. GOJANUR, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.05.2018 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.47/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, LAXMESHWAR, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
15.06.2015 PASSED IN O.S. NO.126/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
LAXMESHWAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE SUIT FILED FOR
DECLARATION.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13618
RSA No. 100492 of 2022
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present second appeal by the State assailing the
concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby, the suit
seeking for declaration and the change of the date of birth of
the plaintiff was allowed by the Courts below and the suit was
decreed.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their
rankings before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the
materials on record.
4. Brief facts of the case are that:
It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was born on
11.08.1984 at Jyothi Nursing Home, Laxmeshwar Taluka,
Shirhatti District Dharwad, now it is in Gadag, as per Chief
Registrar of Births and Deaths Municipality Laxmeshwar have
issued birth certificate.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13618
5. The Parents of Plaintiff have mistakenly through
over sight have intimated date of birth as 21.03.1982 at the
time of admission to Ist standard at Government Higher
Primary school Gojanur. The said entry of date of birth
continued in defendant No.11 to Defendant No.14 schools and
colleges. The Plaintiff has studied from Ist to VIIth standard at
Government Higher Primary School Gojanur defendant No.10-
Institution, in the year 1989-90 to 1997, and further joined
Government High School Gojanur, from VIIth standard to
S.S.L.C. in the year 1997 to 2000. It is further averred that the
plaintiff further joined college i.e. Municipal Pre-University
College, Laxmeshwar and studied from PUC Ist year Arts and
PUC IInd year Arts in the year 2000-2002 and again joined TMC,
Municipal Arts and Commerce College, Laxmeshwar and studied
B.A. Ist B.A. IInd and B.A. IIIrd year in the year 2002 to 2005
and further completed B.Ed in Bapuji College of Education
Chitradurga in the year 2005-2006 and further she joined
Karnataka State open University Mysore and completed her M.A
(final) in the year 2009 to 2012.
6. The Plaintiff had applied for appointment of
Assistant Teacher Grade-II in Government Higher Primary
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13618
School in the year 2012. The appointing authority/selection
committee and Joint Director of Public Education Department
Belgaum Division, Belgaum has appointed the Plaintiff on
13.03.2013, as Assistant Teacher, Grade-II and the same
appointment is intimated by D.D.P.I. Belgaum on 29.08.2013.
In the said intimation-appointment letter, the date of birth of
the plaintiff is mentioned as shown in SSLC marks card and
leaving certificate as 21.03.1982 and the same is continued in
service records of the Plaintiff. The said date of birth is
mentioned wrongly by the parents of the plaintiff at the time of
admission to Ist standard at Defendant No.10 school.
7. The Plaintiff has shown the appointment letter
dated 29.08.2013 to her parents and at that time she noticed
that the date of birth of the plaintiff is shown as 21.03.1982
instead of 11.08.1984. It is further contended that the
marriage of parents of the plaintiff was performed on
21.05.1983 at Gojanur village and plaintiff being eldest
daughter was born on 11.08.1984 at Jyothi Nursing Home.
Laxmeshwar. The Hospital authorities have intimated the said
fact to Chief Registrar of Births and Death Municipality,
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13618
Laxmeshwar and have recorded the date of birth of the Plaintiff
as 11.08.1984 in the Birth Register.
8. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Trial Court, the
defendants appeared and filed their objections, inter-alia
denying the contentions raised by the plaintiff.
9. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed
the following issues:
"«ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
1. ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ¤dªÁzÀ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ '11-08-1984'
JAzÀÄ ¸Á©vÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?
2. ªÁ¢AiÀÄ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ vÀ¦à¤AzÀ(ÉÃ
'21-03-1982' JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸Á©vÀÄ
¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?
3. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ªÁzÀ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉýgÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÉÃ?
4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ rQæ?"
10. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, oral
and documentary evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff
holding that the date of birth of the plaintiff is as mentioned in
the birth certificate issued by the Municipal authorities and the
date of birth is 11.08.1984. Aggrieved by the Judgment and
decree of the Trial Court an appeal was preferred before the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13618
First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court while re-
appreciating and re-assessing the entire oral and documentary
evidence independently concurred with the Judgment and
decree of the Trial Court and held that the plaintiff is entitled
for declaration as sought for in the plaint. Against the
concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below the present
second appeal by the State.
11. The undisputed facts are that the birth certificate
has been issued by the Municipal authorities and the date of
birth of the plaintiff has been registered as 11.08.1984.
Inadvertently, a wrong date has been given by the parents of
the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff is born on 21.03.1982 and
which has been carried in all her school records and as well as
her college records, wherein, she has obtained her M.A degree.
The Trial Court based on the evidence and the materials placed
by the plaintiff more particularly the birth certificate of the
plaintiff which is marked at Ex.P.1 clearly evidences the date of
birth of the plaintiff and has arrived at a conclusion that the
date of birth mentioned in the school register on 21.03.1982 is
much prior to the marriage of the parents of the plaintiff i.e.,
on 21.05.1983 and the date of birth of the plaintiff is wrongly
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13618
mentioned in the school records as 21.03.1982 and held that
the same is to be corrected and entered in the birth column as
11.08.1984 and Trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled for
necessary corrections in the school records.
12. The First Appellate Court being the last fact finding
Court has re-assessed the entire oral and documentary
evidence independently and arrived at a conclusion that the
date of birth of the plaintiff in the school register has wrongly
been registered as 21.03.1982 and the birth certificate issued
by the Municipal authorities which has been on the basis of the
hospital authorities, intimating the said fact to the Chief
Registrar of Birth and Death Municipality, Laxmeshwar, the
First Appellate Court had arrived at a conclusion that the suit
filed for declaration is to be decreed. A birth certificate is a
permanent record of an individual identity. The birth of the
plaintiff was duly registered on 11.08.1984 Ex.P.1, the
registration of the birth was made strictly as per the procedures
contemplated under the Registration of Birth and Death Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) and therefore, the
birth certificate is admissible in evidence as contemplated
under Section 17(2) of the said Act and since it is a public
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13618
document the officer who issued the birth certificate need not
be examined. The manner in which, the Courts below had
arrived at a conclusion and considered the entire oral and
documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that
the same does not warrants any interference against the
concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below and there
arises no substantial question of law under Section 100 C.P.C.
Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Regular Second Appeal is hereby
dismissed.
ii) The Judgment and decree of the Courts below
stands confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PJ, CT: UMD
