- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15509 RFA No. 468 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.468 OF 2022 (DEC) BETWEEN: SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR S @ GNANENDRA S/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.327 4TH CROSS 7TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE K S LAYOUT BENGALURU 560 078 …APPELLANT (BY SRI NARAYAN M. NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PRIMARY AND SECONDARY M S BUILDING BENGALURU -560 001 2. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU -560 003 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT K G ROAD BENGALURU 560 002 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER NORTH ZONE-2 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15509 RFA No. 468 of 2022 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU -560 003 5. THE PRINCIPAL VISHWAKALANIKETAN MODEL ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL NO.101, 6TH CROSS RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU -560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.AZRA J. DUNDGE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5- SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8675/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.8675/2014 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 passed by the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for declaration that his Date of Birth was 26.12.1977 instead of 26.08.1976 and for consequential directions to the respondents to issue revised SSLC Marks Card by showing his Date of Birth as 26.12.1977, was dismissed by the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15509 RFA No. 468 of 2022 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the material on record. The respondent No.5 having been served with notice of the appeal has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the appeal. 3. The appellant-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit interalia contending that his actual date of birth was 26.12.1977 and due to her illiteracy, his mother gave the Date of Birth at the time of admission to his School as 26.08.1976, pursuant to which, the SSLC Marks Card shows the Date of Birth of the plaintiff as 26.08.1976 instead of 26.12.1977 which was the actual Date of Birth of the plaintiff. It was contended that the BBMP authorities had issued the Birth Certificate in favour of the plaintiff and his horoscope, both of which show his Date of Birth as 26.12.1977. It was contended that since the request made to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to correct/change the Date of Birth of the plaintiff in his SSLC Marks Cards from 26.08.1976 to 26.12.1977 was not complied with by them, the appellant –plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15509 RFA No. 468 of 2022 4. The respondents filed their written statement and contested the suit and sought for its dismissal, pursuant to which, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his date of birth is 26.12.1977 and not 26.08.1976? 2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for? 4) What order or decree?” 5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked while the defendants did not adduce oral or documentary evidence. 6. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff, who is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15509 RFA No. 468 of 2022 8. A perusal of the material on record clearly establishes that apart from the fact that the pleadings and evidence adduced by the appellant – plaintiff had remained unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged by the respondents – defendants, who had not adduced any evidence to rebut the claim of the appellant-plaintiff, the birth certificate at Ex.P-4 issued by the BBMP Authorities and the horoscope clearly establish that the actual Date of Birth of the plaintiff was 26.12.1977 and not 26.08.1976 as incorrectly/erroneously shown in the SSLC Marks Card, which was based on the information wrongly given at the time of the admission of the plaintiff to the School by the plaintiff’s mother on account of her illiteracy, which was carried forward by showing the incorrect Date of Birth of the plaintiff as 26.08.1976 instead of his actual date of birth which was 26.12.1977. The cumulative effect of the material on record is sufficient to indicate that actual date of birth of the plaintiff was 26.12.1977 and not 26.08.1976 as incorrectly/erroneously shown in the SSLC Marks Card which deserves to be corrected accordingly. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15509 RFA No. 468 of 2022 passing the impugned judgment and decree which deserves to be set aside by this Court in the present appeal. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.8675/2014 on the file of the XXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-14) is hereby set aside. (iii) The suit in O.S.No.8675/2014 filed by the appellant-plaintiff is hereby decreed as prayed for by the appellants. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE KCM/MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84