Sri Vinodhkumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2018

Sri Vinodhkumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2018

 

      IN THE COURT OF THE LXI CITY CIVIL &
    SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62)

       Dated this the 19th day of February, 2018

                   -: PRESENT:-
  SRI.SUNILDUTT ANNAPPA CHIKKORDE, M.A. L.L.M
          LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
               Bangalore, (CCH-62)

             ORIGINAL SUIT NO.9988/2015

PLAINTIFF:      1. Sri Vinodhkumar
                S/o.Late Rajendran
                Aged about 23 years

                2. Sri Vijaykuamr
                S/o.Late Ranjendran
                Aged about 19 years
                Both are R/a.No.6
                3rd Main, 10th E Cross, Sanjivinagar
                Bangalore-72.

                (By Sri.S.Rachaiah., Advocate.)

                             .V/s.

Defendant/s :   1. The State of Karnataka
                Rep. by its Chief Secretary
                Vidhanasoudha
                Bangalore-01.

                2. The Vice-chancellor
                Bangalore University
                Jnanabharathi Campus
                Jnanabharathi
                Bangalore.

                3. The Director,
                Pre-University Board
                Malleshwaram 18th Cross
                Malleshwaram
                                          2                    OS No.9988/2015

                         Bangalore-03

                         4. The Director
                         SSLC Board
                         6th Cross, Mallesharam-03

                         5. The Deputy Director of Public Instruction
                         Bangalore Urban (North) Dist
                         K.G. Road, Opp. Cauvery Bhavan,
                         Bangalore-02.

                         6. The Chief Superintendent Block Education
                         Officer, Bangalore North Taluk, 6th Cross,
                         Malleshwaram, Bangalore-03.

                         (Ex-parte)

                             JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs filed this suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to declare that they belong to Agamudi Community which is recognized as OBC at Karnataka as per their father commumity, to directed the respondents to change the case of the plaintiffs in term of judgement and decree and to pass such other relief's.

2. After registration of the suit, the suit summons were issued to the defendants. Inspite of service of summons, the defendant No.2 remained absent and hence defendant No.2 was placed ex-parte. Defendant No.1, 3 to 6 have put in their appeared through their counsel Sri.Lohithsewari and the defendant No.5 filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable against the defendant due to non- joinder of necessary parties and liable to be dismissed with costs. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of his father name and his caste in which caste they belongs. It is further contended that there is no document to show that the birth place of the plaintiff and the community certificate issued by Zonal Deputy Tahasildar, Thirupathur in the year 2012 in the name of his deceased father except that no other document i.e., Caste Certificate/T.C. is placed by the plaintiff regarding their genuineness to file this suit and they have not filed documents to show that their caste belongs to Agamudi Mudaliar which comes under OBC in Tamil Nadu State. It is further contended that the plaintiff changed their caste as Modlier into Valluvan without base less document and obtained benefit from the Government by cheating in their studies in schools and they changed their caste in school records with school authorities in Transfer Certificate from one class to another, so the plaintiff filed present suit to escape their liability and obtained wrong decree in their favour before this court. The plaintiffs are creating all documents for their own benefits and in Karnataka State the Caste 'Agamudi Modalier' is not recognized caste in Gazette Notification and no caste in state list and the said caste does not come under OBC at Karnataka State and the caste name is not entered in State List and hence without gazette notification the defendant has no power to decide the mater on issue. On these grounds the defendants have prayed to dismiss the suit.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, this court framed the following issues.

1. whether the plaintiffs prove that they belong to Hindu Mudaliar Caste but it is wrongly mentioned as Hindu S.C. (Valluvan) in School records?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for change of their caste in school certificates as Hindu Mudaliar?

3. Whether the defendant No.5 proves that suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief's claimed?

5. What order or decree?

4. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case, examined plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1 by filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and got marked 3 documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and closed their evidence.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the materials placed on record. The Learned Counsel for the defendants have relied on the following decision;

1. State of Tamil Nadu V/s. A.Guruswamy (AIR 1997 SC 1199)

2. Dharmanna V/s. The Deputy Commissioner RSA No.816/2006.

6. My findings to the above issues are as under:

Issue Nos.1 to 4 : In the 'Negative'.

Point No.5 :As per the final order for the following:

REASONS

7. ISSUE No.1 TO 4:- As these issues are inter connected, I have taken up these issues for discussion together inorder to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.

8. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, they belong to Agamudi Mudaliar which is recognized as OBC community at Tamil Nadu. The plaintiff are the sons of Late Rajendra S/o.natesan Goundar and Rukmini. Originally the parents of the plaintiff belongs to Tamil nadu and shifted to Bangalore before giving birth to plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs died on 27.1.01 and both the plaintiff have been born and brought up at Bangalore, belong to OBC community as per the caste list of Tamilnadu. The caste of the father of the plaintiff have recognized by the Government of Karnataka as Agamudi as per Gazette Notification of the Karnataka and which comes under OBC Community and the caste of the plaintiffs recognized as Hindu Agamudi Mudaliar as well as Agamudayar in the state of TamilNadu Government. After the death of the plaintiffs father, their mother took responsibility of the plaintiffs and she was misguided and hence wrong caste certificate was issued as the plaintiffs are belonging to SC Valluvan. The plaintiffs are not aware about this fact as to which Community they belongs to because the plaintiff No.1 has studied 10th Standard at St.Anthony's High School. The VII Standard Transfer Certificate discloses true caste which the plaintiff belongs i.e., Hindu Mudaliar. Later in High School it has been changed as Hindu SC (Valluvan). The VII Standard Transfer certificate of plaintiff No.2 discloses that they belong to Hindu SC, where as the II PUC Transfer Certificate discloses Hindu Valluvan. Both the plaintiffs have got the caste certificates as SC Valluvan which they not belong. The inadvertent mistake crept is as the mother of the plaintiffs are not educated and she was not been properly guided. The benefit which the SC community people will get was not required to them but due to mistake they have obtained if for the purpose of study. The mother of the plaintiffs by name Rukmini W/o.Late Rajendran belongs to Narayaneri Village, Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District.

9. Plaintiff No.1 studied BBM at MES College, Malleshwaram Bangalore and plaintiff No.2 is pursing BBM at the same college. They did not know about the caste certificates and other details and their mother is also not aware about the mistake happened in the document if at all if she knew this before she could have rectified it at the earliest. The plaintiffs wanted to rectify the caste mistake before they join to any other Govt. Employment and have bonafide intention to change their certificates as per their original caste which they recognized and belong. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

10. PW.1 has reiterated the entire plaint averments in his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit and got marked three Ex.P1 to Ex.P.3 in support of his case i.e., Ex.P.1-Death Certificate of father of the plaintiff, Ex.P.2 -

Community Certificate of father of the plaintiff, Ex.P.3- Nativity Certificate of Mother of the plaintiff.

11. The plaintiffs have claimed that they belongs to Agamudi Community but their mother took responsibility of plaintiff and she was misguided and hence wrong caste certificate was issued as the plaintiffs are belonging to SC Valluvan. The inadvertent mistake crept in as the mother of the plaintiffs was not educated and she was not been properly guided. Even though, they requested the defendants to enter their caste of 'Agamudi' in place of their previous caste name the defendants did not do so and the defendants had advised them to get the order of competent court. Inspite of issue of statutory notice, calling upon them to effect change in respect of his caste, they refused to do so. It appears that the caste of the plaintiffs is Agamudi, it is evident from Ex.P.2 Community Certificate of the late father of the plaintiffs i.e., N.Rajendran S/o.Nateshan belongs to Hindu Agamudaya Mudhaliyar Community. But now the plaintiff wants to get change their caste as Agamudi Community which is recognized as OBC at Karnataka. But inorder to establish the said caste in Karnataka State plaintiffs ought to have produced Government Notification or cogent material before this court which they have not done so. It is also pertinent to note that before approaching this court plaintiffs ought to have approached the caste verification committee and in this regard plaintiffs have not produced any material before this court to show that they approached competent caste verification committee. Therefore under these circumstances having regard to the oral evidence of PW-1 and documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3

12. It is pertinent to note that defendant No.5 taken up contention in his written statement that at para No.3 of the written statement that the suit filed by the plaintiff is bad under the law for non joinder of necessary parties. But inorder to substantiate the same there is no specific pleadings in his written statement. Therefore, under these circumstances it is clear that the said contention of defendant No.5 appears to a bald contention and hence it can be inferred that there are no merits in the contention taken by defendant No.5.

13. On going through the view taken in the above case law relied by the defendant No.5 in the light of the entire facts and circumstances of this case it is clear that in this case it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they belongs to any particular caste coming under the SC or ST and their relief for declaration is in respect of OBC, when such being the situation, the view taken in the above case law in the light of the fact and circumstances of the above case laws are quite different from this case. Hence, the same do not attract to the case in hand. Since the evidence of PW-1 remained in piece meal this court is of considered view that plaintiffs are not able to prove issue No.1, 2 and 4 and also defendant No.5 also not substantiated his contention at para No.3 of the written statement. Accordingly issue No.1 to 4 are answered in the 'Negative'.

14. ISSUE No.5:- Having regard to my above observations and finding on above issue No.1 to 4 in the 'negative, I hold that plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs claimed in this suit. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER The suit of the Plaintiffs is dismissed. Draw Decree accordingly.

(Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of February, 2018).

(S.A.CHIKKORDE) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

PW.1: Vijayakumar.R LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.P.1 Death Certificate of father of the plaintiff Ex.P.2 Community Certificate of Father of the plaintiff Ex.P.3 Nativity Certificate of Mother of the plaintiff LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:

NIL (S.A.CHIKKORDE) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

19.2.2018 P-CMR D1,3,4,5,6-LE D-2-Exparte JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT VIDE SEPARATE TYPED ORDER The suit of the Plaintiffs is dismissed.

Draw Decree accordingly.

(S.A.Chikkorde) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.