Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal is as follows:- “Whether the finding of the courts below that the first respondent belongs to a Scheduled Caste is a perverse finding in the face of the school records and the report of the Revenue Inspector/Deputy Tahsildar indicating to the contrary?”

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances which are narrated below, it would be necessary to reframe the substantial question of law especially in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994)6 SCC 241, namely,

“Whether a civil suit was maintainable in the light of the law as declared by the apex court in relation to Caste Certificates issued pursuant to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976?”

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents were heard on this substantial question of law that is reframed as above.

5. The facts of the case are as follows:-

The appellant was the plaintiff who had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the first respondent herein did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe and for the further relief of restraining her from putting herself out as a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe and seeking benefits available to the said Scheduled Tribe and for such other consequential reliefs.

It was contented that the plaintiff – appellant was a permanent resident of Kanoor Village, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District and that he was a social worker working for the betterment of the down-trodden of Virajpet Legislative Constituency. According to the plaintiff, the said constituency was declared as a Scheduled Tribe Assembly Constituency of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and was reserved to be represented by candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe. It is further stated that the Government of India, by a Presidential Order under Section (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, notified various castes and tribes of Karnataka State in whose favour the said reservation benefits were provided. The caste “Marathi”. According to the plaintiff, is neither a Scheduled Cast nor a Scheduled Tribe. Under the Schedule to the above Act, Para-VI pertains to Karnataka State regarding notified Scheduled Tribes and Castes of Karnataka State. “Maratha” in Coorg District at Entry No.35 and “Marathi” in Dakshina Kannada District, notified at Entry No.36 are said to be Scheduled Tribes. The first defendant, who was earlier known as Marathi Padmini did not belong to Maratha caste found at Entry No.35 of Part-VI of the Schedule to the Act, but she belonged to Marathi Caste, which is a backward class as per the Notification of the Government of Karnataka dated 13.10.1986. However, on a misrepresentation by the first defendant, the she belonged to Maratha Scheduled Tribe of Coorg District, had obtained a caste certificate to that effect and had contested the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections from Virajpet Constituency during the year 1983, 1989 and 1994. In the year 1983, she was successful in the election and had defeated a real Scheduled Tribe candidate one H.D.Rajan and who, in turn, had challenged her election by way of an election petition before this court in Election Petition No.4/1985, on the ground that she did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The said petition; however abated on account of the death of the petitioner therein. In the year 1989, the first defendant had again contested for the membership of the assembly from the same constituency as a Congress candidate and defeated one G.S.Pushkara. During those periods, the first defendant was even elevated as a minister in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. Further, during the year 1994. She had cont