JUDGMENT

The captioned second appeals are by unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the concurrent judgments rendered by both the Courts, wherein both the Courts have dismissed the suits filed by plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration that plaintiffs belong to Bhovi community which falls under Scheduled Caste category and for mandatory injunction to direct defendants to amend caste in the school records on the ground that the reliefs are barred under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Plaintiff in O.S.No.45/2019 claimed that at the time of institution of suit she was studying in final year B.Sc. at St. Philomin’s College, Mysuru. Plaintiff has studied from 3rd to 7th Standard at Fathima Higher Primary School, Kushalnagar and she has studied 8th Standard at Bharath Matha High School, Koppa. Plaintiff further studied 9th and 10th standard at Shanthinikethan High School, Kodagarahalli.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.44/2019 claimed that he studied from 1st to 4th standard at St. Marry’s school, Sunticoppa and from 5th to 7th standard, he studied at Fathima Higher Primary School, Kushalnagar. Plaintiff further claimed that he pursued his P.U.Education at COPs Gonikoppal and thereafter, he completed his B.E. degree from N.I.E.

College of Engineering, Manandavadi Road, Mysore.

Plaintiffs claim that their father belong to Bhovi community which comes under Scheduled Caste category. However, while admitting plaintiffs to school, caste was wrongly shown as ‘Gowda’ instead of ‘Bhovi’. In the school records, plaintiffs caste is shown to be ‘Gowda’. Therefore, plaintiffs instituted suits seeking relief of declaration to declare that they belong to Bhovi community which falls under Scheduled Caste category and that defendants have wrongly entered the caste in the school records and consequently, sought for mandatory injunction.

4. The trial Court dismissed both the suits by placing reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Government of Karnataka, Rep. by Deputy Commissioner and Others vs. Kumari Shilpa Shrishail Baragadagi and Another1. The trial Court while dismissing the suits held that plaintiffs have a remedy before the caste verification committee where they can seek redressal of their grievance and seek correction of the school records including caste certificate. Therefore, trial Court was of the view that civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief sought in the plaint.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiffs preferred appeals before the appellate Court.

1 ILR 2014 Kar 5389

6. Before the appellate Court, plaintiffs withdrew the prayer seeking relief of declaration and only restricted the claim to relief of mandatory injunction. Though relief of declaration was deleted by way of amendment, appellate Court was of the view that relief of mandatory injunction to rectify the school records cannot be agitated before civil Court and civil Court has no jurisdiction to issue mandatory injunction to rectify the school records. Appellate Court was of the view that plaintiffs have to approach the committee constituted by the State Government. Appellate Court while dismissing the appeals placed reliance on the law laid down by this Court in the case of P.S.Venugopal vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and Others2.

7. This Court vide order dated 20.12.2023 admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law:

2 2016 SCC Online Kar 8398

“1. Whether both the Courts erred in holding that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to issue mandatory injunction to the School Authorities to rectify the mistakes in the school records relating to the caste and bring it in conformity with the Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority? 2. Whether remedy under Section 4C(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backwa