The judgment established that a suit for declaration of caste can be maintainable under Section 9, C. P. C., based on the civil right accrued to the plaintiff by virtue of his belonging to a particular caste or sub-caste.

K. S. BHAKTHAVATSALAM, J.

( 1 ) UP in this second appeal.

( 2 ) THE substantial question of law framed at the time of admitting the appeal is, "is the suit of the plaintiff-respondent maintainable in view of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure taking into consideration the relief sought by him?"

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he belongs to "koshti" caste and that a direction may be issued to the director of public instructions or his subordinates to rectify the records by changing the words "hindu lingayat" and substituting the words "hindu koshti".

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that he is a resident of hulyal and his father and forefathers also came from the same place and since time immemorial they are following the business of weaving known as "koshti" in marathi and "jardar" in kannada. It is claimed that the plaintiff and his family members follow the same profession. Plaintiff alleges that he is a graduate of Karnataka university and is pursuing his studies. While entering his name in the school register, his name was shown as hindu lingayat but there is no religion in India as hindu lingayat. According to the plaintiff, lingayat is only a caste. The plaintiff alleges that hindu is religion and the government also recognised the plaintiff's case that koshti is a caste from 1932 and the same state of affairs continue till now. It is stated that the plaintiff came to know about the wrong mention of the caste during may 1980 and after issuing notice under Section 80, C. P. C. has filed the suit.

( 5 ) THE defence was, adoption of weaving profession by the parents of plaintiff does not constitute a sub-caste as "jadar" in kannada and "koshti" in marathi. The entry in the school and college register is being continued on the information being given in the application for admission and census by the plaintiffs parents and as such the plaintiff and his parents cannot go back and contend that what has been noted is wrong and illegal. It is stated that the weaving profession is done by one and all irrespective of caste, creed or community. It is also stated that the suit is time-barred and plaintiff is estopped now from contending that it is illegal. A plea with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties and validity of Section 80, C. P. C. notice are also raised. Another defence was that the suit was bared under Section 9, C. P. C. as the court has no jurisdiction to grant the declaration sought for.

( 6 ) THE trial court, after considering the documentary and oral evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is hindu koshti by caste and accordingly decreed the suit partly without granting the consequential relief of rectification of school register by the authorities concerned. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the state filed an appeal. In the appeal, one of the important questions raised was in regard to the scope of Section 9, C. P. C. and maintainability of the suit. The question raised before the appellate court was that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit involving principally the caste question and consideration of caste question is beyond civil court's jurisdiction. However, the appellate court held that the principal question involved is not of caste but of the civil right accrued to the plaintiff by virtue of his belonging to a particular caste or sub-caste. Taking note of Article 16 (4) of the constitution and the report of the backward classes commission, the appellate court held that suit is maintainable and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The state is before this court.

( 7 ) I have already extracted the substantial question of law which has been formulated by this court when this appeal was admitted. The short question is, whether the suit is maintainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is to be noted that whether it is a suit for mere declaration for a particular caste

Click Here to Read the rest of this document