- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6332 RSA No. 100696 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100696 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ-) BETWEEN: TEJAS VASUDEVASWAMY GOWDA, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. PLOT NO.2590, SECTOR 12, MM EXTENSION, BELAGAVI-590016. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.C. COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. THE REGISTRAR, VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, BELAGAVI-590018. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BELAGAVI-590001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MANGALURU-574143. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, ALVA’S PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, MOODBIDRI-574227. 6. THE PRINCIPAL, LOVE DALE CENTRAL SCHOOL, BELAGAVI-590001. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6332 RSA No. 100696 of 2023 7. THE HEAD MASTER, HAL GNANAJYOTI SCHOOL, MARATHAHALLI, POST: BENGALURU-37. 8. DDPI, BELAGAVI, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. 9. BEO, BELAGAVI, SADASHIVA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1, R8 & R9; SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2, R4, R5, R6 & R7 SERVED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BELAGAVI IN R.A.NO.06/2021 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS BELAGAVI IN O.S. NO.408/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6332 RSA No. 100696 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs, challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2022 passed in RA No.6/2021 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2021 passed in OS No.408/2019 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the name of the plaintiff is ‘Tejas Vasudevswamy Gowda’ and not ‘Arunussva V. Gowda’. In this regard, it is the grievance of the plaintiff that, the defendant Nos.2 to 7 have entered the name of the plaintiff wrongly and the plaintiff is pursuing Engineering Course at Srinivas Institute of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6332 RSA No. 100696 of 2023 Technology, Mangaluru, hence, the plaintiff filed OS No.408/2019, seeking declaration with regard to correction of his name in the school records. 4. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant No.8 that, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. 6. In order to establish their case, plaintiff has examined as PW1 and got marked 04 documents as Exs.P1 to P4. On the other hand, no evidence on the part of the defendants. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 14.01.2021, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred Regular Appeal in RA No.6/2021 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6332 RSA No. 100696 of 2023 appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 11.03.2022, dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.408/2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 8. This Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 formulated the following substantial question of law. i) Whether both the Courts below have misconstrued the prayer made in the plaint? ii) Whether both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the case of the plaintiff seeking correction of his name in the educational records? 9. I have heard Sri. Deepak Maganur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 8 and 9 and Sri. M. B. Kanavi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6332 RSA No. 100696 of 2023 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, both the Courts below have misconstrued the relief sought for by the plaintiff as the plaintiff has sought for correction of his name as ‘Tejas Vasudevswamy Gowda’ and therefore, referring to the finding recorded by both the Courts below, he contended that, the plaintiff has not sought for declaration with regard to the caste and therefore, finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be interfered. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-CBSE submitted that, it is the duty of the plaintiff to approach the Competent Court seeking declaration within five years from the date of knowledge and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Learned HCGP argued on similar lines with the respondent No.3 and submitted that, both the Courts below concurrently held that, the relief sought for by the plaintiff cannot be accepted and therefore, same has to be confirmed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6332 RSA No. 100696 of 2023 13. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below and perused the record. The prayer made in the plaint reads as under: “Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed by the plaintiff that setting aside the contentions of the defendants if any, a decree in the following terms may kindly be passed. a) It be declared that the plaintiff’s name is ‘TEJAS VASUDEVSWAMY GOWDA’ not ‘ARUNUSSVA V. GOWDA’. b) Consequential Relief of Mandatory Injunction be granted directing the defendants to effect the necessary corrections in their records. c) Allow the cost of this suit. d) Pass such other orders in favour of the plaintiff as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. e) Permission may kindly be accorded to amend the plaint as and when necessary.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6332 RSA No. 100696 of 2023 14. Having taken note of the relief sought for by the plaintiff is only with regard to declare his name as ‘Tejas Vasudevswamy Gowda’ and not ‘Arunussva V. Gowda’, and in that view of the matter, as the plaintiff has not sought for change of caste nor any other relief and therefore, the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to declare the name as claimed by the plaintiff, taking into consideration the acceptable evidence produced in the evidence. I am of the view that, as both the Courts below have misconstrued the fact that, the plaintiff is seeking change of caste or verification of his caste and the said finding requires to be set aside in this appeal and accordingly, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above. 15. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed above favours the plaintiff. It is also to be noted that, the plaintiff has filed IA No.1/2024 under Order 7 Rule 14 read with 14 Sub Rule 1 and 3 of CPC and sought to produce certain documents and same has to be - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6332 RSA No. 100696 of 2023 considered by the Trial Court while disposing the suit on merits. 16. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) Appeal is allowed. ii) Judgment and decree dated 11.03.2022 in RA No.06/2021 on the file IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi, is hereby set aside. iii) Judgment and decree dated 04.01.2021 in OS No.408/2019 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in the in the light of the observations made above. iv) Since, the parties are represented through their learned counsel, the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6332 RSA No. 100696 of 2023 05.06.2025 at 11.00 a.m., without waiting any notice. v) The Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM / CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35