KUMAR ARUSH S/O RAKESH KALADAGI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
R
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100023 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. KUMAR ARUSH
S/O RAKESH KALADAGI
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
OCC STUDENT
R/O GOULIGALL, MALMADDI
DHARWAD – 580 007.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S R HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D C COMPOUND
DHARWAD – 580 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION (D.D.P.I)
D.D. P.I OFFICE, D.C.COMPOUND
DHARWAD – 580 001.
3. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
DHARWAD CITY ZONE
DHARWAD – 580 008.
4. THE HEAD MASTER
BASEL MISSION ENGLISH MEDIUM
HIGH SCHOOL
DHARWAD – 580 001.
Digitally
signed by
THEJAS
KUMAR N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
5. THE HEAD MASTER
NEW ERA SCHOOL, MALMADDI,
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SWAMI MATH
DHARWAD – 580 007.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEKH MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 & R5 N/D/W)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD IN R.A.NO.35/2022
DATED 08.09.2025 FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.610/2019 DATED 28.01.2022 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff
questioning the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2025
passed in R.A.No.35/2022 by the Principal Senior Civil
1
Judge and CJM, Dharwad , which set aside the judgment
and decree dated 28.01.2022 passed in O.S.No.610/2019
2
by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad. Thereby,
1
hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for short
2
hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
the suit filed for declaration and mandatory injunction to
correct the name of the minor plaintiff which was decreed
but set aside by the First Appellate Court. Hence, against
the divergent findings of the First Appellate Court and the
Trial Court, this regular second appeal is filed.
2. For the sake of convenience and easy
reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Trial Court.
PLANTIFF’S CASE:
3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and
mandatory injunction that the plaintiff’s correct name is
"Aarush" instead of "Shahid" and his caste is "Hindu Gouli"
instead of "Muslim" and to direct the defendants to make
corrections to the name of the plaintiff as "Aarush" and
caste as "Hindu Gouli".
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's
name is "Aarush", who is the son of Rakesh Kaladagi and
at the time of admission in the school of defendant No.4,
due to oversight, the name of the plaintiff was wrongly
shown as "Shahid" instead of "Aarush" and the caste of
the minor plaintiff was wrongly mentioned as "Muslim"
instead of "Hindu Gouli". However, defendant No.4 is
informed that it has to be corrected only through the
process of the Court. Hence, being left with no other
option, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.
Therefore, the present suit is filed for correction of the
name and caste of the plaintiff in the school records.
DEFENDANTS’ CASE:
5. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in the written
statement have contended that the plaint of the plaintiff is
not maintainable and the suit filed without issuing notice
under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short
'CPC') is not maintainable. Further, they have raised
contention that the particulars of the name of the plaintiff
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
and caste name of the plaintiff are as per the information
given by the father of the plaintiff and were accordingly
entered in the school records and hence, there is no scope
for making corrections in the school records. It is further
contended that the suit in this regard is not maintainable
under Section 9 of CPC. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the
suit.
ISSUES:
6. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has
framed the following issues:
i. Whether the plaintiff proves that, his
correct name is “Aarush” but not “Shahid”
and his caste is “Hindu Gouli” but not
“Muslim”?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief
of declaration as prayed for?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief
of Mandatory injunction as prayed for?
iv. What decree or order?
7. In order to prove the case, the father of the
minor plaintiff, namely Rakesh Kaladagi is examined as
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
PW-1 and produced documentary evidence and got
marked them as Exs.P-1 to P-6(a). On behalf of the
defendants, there is no oral and documentary evidence.
FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT:
8. Upon appreciating the evidence on record, the
Trial Court decreed the suit granting the relief that the
plaintiff's correct name is declared as "Aarush" instead of
"Shahid" and the caste is "Hindu Gouli" instead of
"Muslim". Accordingly, by way of mandatory injunction,
the Trial Court directed the defendants to carry out the
corrections of the name and caste of the plaintiff as stated
above. The reasonings assigned by the Trial Court is that
the father of the plaintiff produced Ex.P-1-birth certificate
of the minor plaintiff and Ex.P-6-Aadhar Card and Ex.P-2-
Backward Class certificate and Ex.P-3-Transfer Certificate.
9. Upon perusal of the same, the name of the
plaintiff is found to be “Aarush” and the caste name is
found to be “Hindu Gouli”. Therefore, when the name of
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
plaintiff’s father is found to be Rakesh Kaladagi and the
caste is “Hindu Gouli”, naturally the caste or religion of the
parents will be followed by the children. Hence, when the
father belongs to the caste “Hindu Gouli”, there is no
impediment to believe that the caste of the plaintiff is also
“Hindu Gouli”.
10. Further, it is observed that in Ex.P-4-certificate
issued by defendant No.4-school, namely the transfer
certificate, the plaintiff’s name is wrongly mentioned as
“Shahid Kaladagi” and the caste is wrongly mentioned as
“Muslim”; therefore, by the documentary evidence, the
plaintiff has proved that the correct name of the plaintiff is
“Aarush” and belongs to the caste of “Hindu Gouli”.
Further, it is observed that the Tahasildar, Dharwad Taluk,
Dharwad, has also issued caste and income certificates
pertaining to the father and sister of the minor plaintiff.
According to it, when they belong to the caste of “Hindu
Gouli”, quite naturally, the minor plaintiff also belongs to
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
the same caste as that of father and sister. Hence,
decreed the suit as prayed for.
GROUNDS RAISED IN THE FIRST APPEAL:
11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree
passed in the suit, the defendants, namely the State of
Karnataka, the Director of Public Instructions and the
Block Education Officer have preferred a regular appeal
before the First Appellate Court by raising various
grounds. One of the grounds urged in the memorandum of
appeal by the State and its departments is that the suit for
correction of name and caste name is not maintainable as
per Section 9 of CPC. The First Appellate Court has framed
a specific point for consideration regarding the
maintainability of the suit. Having considered the nature of
the suit filed, the First Appellate Court, after referring to
various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this
Court has held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not
maintainable and accordingly set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
REASONINGS OF FIRST APPELLATE COURT:
12. The First Appellate Court has assigned reasons
that there is a statutory bar to entertain a suit for
declaration of caste and religion, etc. It is observation
made by the First Appellate Court that even according to
the plaintiff, the caste details were wrongly mentioned by
defendant No.4-school, the same can be redressed by
filing a necessary application before the District Caste
Verification Committee (for short ‘DCVC’) headed by the
Deputy Commissioner of Dharwad. Without approaching
the said committee, the filing of the suit by the plaintiff is
without jurisdiction.
13. Further, it is observed that Ex.P-3 is the
transfer certificate of the father of the minor plaintiff, but
there are no particulars of caste and religion in the said
transfer certificate of the father of the minor plaintiff;
therefore, the Trial Court ignored this aspect and relied on
the caste certificate of Kumari Tanu Kaladagi, which does
not establish the plaintiff’s caste and religion.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
14. Further, the First Appellate Court observed that
there is no evidence that the plaintiff's father belongs to
the "Hindu Gouli" caste and the name of the plaintiff is
"Aarush" but not "Shahid"; therefore, on these reasons,
set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL:
15. Being aggrieved by it, the appellant/plaintiff has
preferred this regular second appeal by raising various
grounds in the memorandum of appeal and also by
pleading that substantial questions of law are involved in
the appeal for consideration.
SUBMISSION TO COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/
PLAINTIFF IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL:
16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff's name is
"Aarush" and belongs to the caste of "Hindu Gouli", but
while admitting to defendant No.4-school, his name was
wrongly entered as "Shahid" and the caste name was
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
wrongly entered as "Muslim". However, there is ample
evidence to prove that the plaintiff's name is "Aarush" and
that he belongs to the caste of "Hindu Gouli". In this
regard, the plaintiff has produced documentary evidence,
which is correctly appreciated by the Trial Court, but the
First Appellate Court, with a perverse finding contrary to
the evidence on record has held that the plaintiff does not
have proof that he belongs to the caste of "Hindu Gouli".
Hence, it is submitted that the finding given by the First
Appellate Court is perverse and is illegal.
17. Further submitted that the plaintiff is not taking
the benefit of reservation at this stage, but his prayer is
only to correct the name of plaintiff in the school records
and the caste name. Therefore, it is a civil right of the
plaintiff to get his name and caste name corrected and
thus, the suit is maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC
for exercising his civil right.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
18. Further, it is submitted that the First Appellate
Court has misconceived the provisions of law that it is only
the DCVC has jurisdiction, but the duties and functions of
the DCVC are different and it is only to ascertain at the
time of seeking job particulars by the candidates that the
committee shall verify the particulars of caste and the
name of the plaintiff, but the committee does not have
jurisdiction to decide the civil right of the plaintiff;
therefore, the First Appellate Court has misconceived the
facts, circumstances and provisions of law in this regard
and thus given a perverse finding.
19. Further, it is submitted that the First Appellate
Court without appreciating the difference in facts in the
cited judgment has mechanically and blindly applied the
said citations to the facts and circumstances in the present
case, but the ratio laid down in the decisions relied on by
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is
different. Hence, the citations relied on by the First
Appellate Court are not applicable. Therefore, prays to
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
allow this regular second appeal by setting aside the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court
and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court.
20. In support of the arguments, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant places reliance on the
following judgments:
i. STATE OF KARNATAKA VS.
3
VARADASHANKAR CHINNAPPA JAVALGI
(Varadashankar Chinnappa Javalgi’s case)
ii. STATE OF T.N. AND OTHERS VS. A.
4
GURUSAMY (A. Gurusamy’s case)
iii. SRISH KUMAR CHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF
5
TRIPURA AND OTHERS (Srish Kumar
Choudhury’s case)
iv. S. SWVIGARADOSS VS. ZONAL MANAGER,
6
F.C.I. (S. Swvigaradoss’s case)
v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REP.,
BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
VS. KUMARI SHILPA SHRISHAIL
3
ILR 1996 KAR 3693
4
(1997) 3 SCC 542
5
1990 (Supp) SCC 220
6
(1996) 3 SCC 100
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
7
BARAGADAGI AND ANOTHER (Kumari
Shilpa Shrishail Baragadagi’s case)
vi. KUMARI MADHURI PATIL AND ANOTHER
VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL
8
DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS (Kumari
Madhuri Patil’s case)
vii. DAYARAM VS. SUDHIR BATHAM AND
9
OTHERS (Dayaram’s case)
viii. K.P. MANU VS. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF
10
COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE (K.P. Manu’s
case)
ix. HARENDRA CHANDRA NATH & OTHERS VS.
BIJOY KRISHNA NATH &
11
OTHERS (Harendra Chandra Nath’s case)
SUBMISSIONS OF ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL:
21. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing on behalf of the
respondents/defendants submitted that the Civil Courts do
not have jurisdiction to decide the correction of name and
caste and places reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble
7
ILR 2014 KAR 5389
8
(1994) 6 SCC 241
9
(2012) 1 SCC 333
10
(2015) 4 SCC 1
11
(1993) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 36
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
Supreme Court and this Court. Further, it is submitted that
the only authority lies with the DCVC to adjudicate the
correction of name and caste; therefore, it is submitted
that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court
is justified. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW:
22. Upon hearing the arguments of both the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff and learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the respondents/defendants, the
following substantial questions of law arise for my
consideration:
i. Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the
suit filed for correction of name of minor
plaintiff and name of caste is
maintainable as it is exercise of civil
right under section 9 of Code of Civil
Procedure?
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
ii. Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the
judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate Court is justified in scuttling
the right of the plaintiff for correcting the
name of the minor plaintiff and the caste
name of the plaintiff in the school
records?
iii. Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the
First Appellate Court is justified in
dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff
for entering the correct name and caste
name in the school records, even though
the plaintiff has not sought for any relief
of claiming benefit of reservation or
admissions?
REASONINGS:
23. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration
simpliciter to declare that his correct name is "Aarush" and
to correct the caste name as "Hindu Gouli". It is the case
of the plaintiff that at the time the plaintiff was born, his
parents had put his name as "Aarush" and his father's
name is "Rakesh Kaladagi" and the entire family belong to
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
the caste "Hindu Gouli". Therefore, the plaintiff is claiming
that his prayer for rectification of his name and the caste
name and is emanating from his father and from the
family records. The plaintiff has filed the suit for exercising
his civil right; therefore, filed the suit for declaration as
discussed above.
24. The Trial Court has decreed the suit by
entertaining it holding that the suit is maintainable under
Section 9 of the CPC, but the First Appellate Court has
reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court holding that the suit is not maintainable as per
Section 9 of the CPC and has also discussed the merits by
appreciating the evidence on record, thereby dismissing
the suit on two reasons. One is that the suit is not
maintainable and the second is on merits that the plaintiff
failed to prove his case.
25. This Court in the case of SRI. VEERAPANDI
A., AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
12
OTHERS (Veerapandi A. and others case) has held
that for correction of name and for correction of name of
the caste, the civil suit is maintainable.
26. Considering the principle of law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied on by the learned
Additional Advocate General and distinguishing the factual
matrix involved in the above cited cases, here, the plaintiff
is exercising his civil right for correction of his name and
correction of the name of the caste. It is the case of the
plaintiff that his real name is “Aarush”, but while admitting
him to the school of defendant No.4, his name was
wrongly entered as “Shahid”. Further, it is the case of
plaintiff that he belongs to the caste of “Hindu Gouli”, but
the caste was wrongly entered as “Muslim”; therefore,
correction of the names in this regard is civil right of the
plaintiff.
27. As per the plaintiff’s contention, his name and
caste name have been completely changed into a different
12
RFA No.1793/2019 dated 18.02.2025
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
religion depriving him of his civil right, legal right and
constitutional right. Here, it is pertinent to mention that in
the suit, the plaintiff has not claimed any benefit of
reservation out of correction of his name and the name of
the caste. When a person is born to his parents, his civil
right accrues at the very moment he is born and the
parents belong to which community/caste, that is
applicable to the child also. No person can be born of his
choice of his parents and of his community. It is the
blessings of God. In this regard, the civil right of the
plaintiff is to be recognized; therefore, the statute cannot
take away civil right which the plaintiff has accrued by his
birth.
28. In this regard, the arguments canvassed by the
learned AAG are to be considered when argued with
reference to the enactment namely Karnataka Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
29. Learned Additional Advocate General with
reference to the Act, 1990 argued that it is District Caste
Verification Committee only to pass order with regard to
caste or religion but not by the Civil Court. The argument
of learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted
that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction for the
reasons of perusing the object and reasons and preamble
of the Act, 1990.
30. The object and reasons of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act,
1990, is as follows:
“An Act to provide for the reservation of
appointments or posts in favour of the members
of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other Backward Classes in the State Civil
Services and establishments in the Public sector
and in admission to Universities and to the
Educational Institutions established or
maintained or aided by the State Government.
Whereas, the members of the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward
Classes of citizens are not adequately
represented in the services or posts in the State
Civil Services and establishments in Public sector
and among the students admitted to the
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
Universities and to Educational Institutions
established or maintained or aided by the State
Government;
And whereas, it is expedient to provide in
favour of them such reservation;”
31. As per the preamble, object and reasons of the
Act, 1990, it is fundamental for providing reservation to
the appointments on admission or posts in favour of the
members of SC, ST and OBC in the State Civil Services
and establishments in Public Sector and admission to the
Universities and to the Educational Institutions. Further,
the reasons for enacting the Act, 1990 is that the
members of SC, ST and OBSs’ are not adequately
represented in the services or posts in the State Civil
Services and establishments in public sector and among
other students admitted to the universities and to the
educational institutions. Therefore, for giving effective
representations to SC, ST and OBC as per aspirations of
Constitution of India for providing reservation, this Act,
1990, is enacted. Therefore, the sum and substance of
enacting the Act, 1990 is to provide reservations to SC, ST
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
and OBCs. Therefore, under this Act, 1990, the
Commissioner has issued circulars.
32. But, in the present case, the plaintiff is not
claiming any reservation or benefits for claiming
reservation etc., Simply what the plaintiff is seeking is
declaration that his correct name is “Aarush Kaladagi”
belong to “Hindu Gouli” caste. Therefore, to include in the
school records, while admitting the plaintiff to the school
his name is “Aarush Kaladagi”. Except for this purpose,
there is no pleading or prayer in the suit. Therefore, in this
regard, the defendants have failed to understand the
whole scheme of the suit framed by the plaintiff. Even, still
the DCVC will have power to make verification and
scrutiny of the caste of the plaintiff in case if the plaintiff
makes claim reservations on his caste. What the prayer in
the suit is to change the name as “Aarush” instead of
“Shahid”. In future, the plaintiff makes claim of any
reservation on the basis of his caste, then the DCVC shall
have power in this regard, but at this stage itself scuttling
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
the civil right of the plaintiff declining the prayer of the
plaintiff at threshold is violation of fundamental right of
the plaintiff not only civil rights. The plaintiff has filed a
suit for exercising his civil right to make correction of his
name and caste name in which community he is born. It is
not at the hands of the plaintiff to choose his
caste/community by birth, but it is right of the plaintiff to
recognize himself to a particular caste/community
according to his birth. Therefore, in this regard, the First
Appellate Court has misconceived itself in allowing the
regular appeal filed by the State/defendants. It is still duty
cast on the plaintiff to prove that he belong to “Hindu
Gouli” caste/community and his correct name is “Aarush
Kaladagi”, but without appreciating the documentary
evidence properly, allowing the regular appeal filed by the
defendants, is violation of right of the plaintiff.
33. In India, every person born to parents belongs
to certain caste or community as per their patents
caste/community and the recognition is by birth, thus,
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
choosing caste/community is not at the hands of the
person who is born. When in this country, recognition of
particular person is with caste/community, then to
continue to be recognized with that particular caste or
community is also his fundamental right. Therefore, for
exercising this right, in order to recognize plaintiff himself
belonging to “Hindu Gouli” caste and his correct name is
“Aarush” has filed a suit to include his name as “Aarush”
and caste name “Hindu Gouli” in school records.
Accordingly, sought for relief of declaration by filing the
suit. The plaintiff is not claiming other reliefs except to
change his name as “Aarush” and caste name as “Hindu
Gouli” in the suit. If the plaintiff claims that the caste
“Hindu Gouli” belongs to SC and SC or OBC and whether
the “Hindu Gouli” caste belongs to SC or ST or OBC that is
different domain to be examined by the DCVC as per
provision of the Act of 1990 and its allied rules. The
Scrutiny Committee/Verification Committee decides the
question whether the particular caste is coming within the
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward
Classes based on the materials/evidence to be place
before it.
34. In our country, no person shall be remained in
a neutral, independent of any caste or community, unless,
it is choice by that person to remain neutral. Therefore, in
this reality in life and legal position, the defendants are
mis-conceived of the fact and misinterpreting the law in
this regard have erroneously contended that the suit is not
maintainable. The defendants are correct if the plaintiff is
claiming the benefit of caste and is attempting to take any
employment on the basis of the caste but that is not so in
the case on hand. Thus, in this way, the suit filed is very
well maintainable as per Section 9 of the CPC. In Kumari
Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) and in Dayaram’s case
(supra), what is held by Hon’ble Apex Court regarding
ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court as per Section 9 of CPC
is against the order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee/Verification Committee, the suit is not
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
maintainable and also for claiming relief in the suit that
such particular caste is coming within the category of SC
or ST or OBC, the suit is not maintainable. But in the
present case, the plaintiff is claiming in the suit that he
belongs to “Hindu Gouli” caste by birth and his correct
name is “Aarush”. Hence, attained the original recognition
of “Hindu Gouli” by birth and his correct name is “Aarush”.
This is the only prayer made in the suit. Therefore, in this
regard the First Appellate Court has misconstrued the
factual matrix and reality involved in the present case and
in the cited case but has erroneously held that the suit is
not maintainable. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff
according to the facts pleaded and prayer made therein is
very well maintainable.
35. The rulings relied on by the learned AAG are
considered and they are distinguished as they have
different set of facts and circumstances in the instant case.
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.
Guruswamy’s case (supra) at Paragraph No.3 has held as
follows:
“3. The only question is whether the suit is
maintainable. By operation of Section 9 of CPC, a suit
of civil nature cognizance of which is expressly or by
implication excluded, cannot be tried by any civil court.
The declaration of the President of India, under Articles
341 and 342 of the Constitution, with respect of lists of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation
to a State, that a particular caste or tribe as defined in
Article 366(24) or (25) respectively, is conclusive
subject to an amendment by Parliament under Articles
341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution. By necessary
implication, the jurisdiction of the civil court to take
cognizance of and give a declaration stands prohibited.
The question then is whether the respondent has been
given an opportunity to establish his case before the
authorities cancelled his community certificate obtained
by him? The order of the District Collector dated 2-12-
1991 clearly mentions that an opportunity was given to
the respondent and he himself had examined him. The
District Collector does not decide it like a suit. What he
does is an enquiry complying with the principles of
rational (sic natural) justice. He considered his stand,
namely, one of the sale deeds of 1962 in which his
status was declared as Kattunaicken but the same was
disbelieved by the District Collector before cancellation.
It is a self-serving document. The authority had,
therefore, given an opportunity to the respondent to
establish his status and found that the certificate
previously obtained was wrong and illegal. Accordingly,
he cancelled the certificate given to the respondent on
23-1-1971. It is then contended by the learned counsel
for the respondent that the guidelines had been given
by the Collector in the manner in which the enquiry is
to be conducted and the synonyms are to be taken and
in pursuance thereof, the Revenue Division Officer
granted him the certificate. We find that the stand
taken is not correct. The guidelines are only to identify
the persons and not to give a declaration as to which
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
community comes under a particular entry of the
Presidential Notification. It is then contended that the
respondent has been given the right to enjoy the
status right from 1971 and, therefore, the principle of
estoppel applies to him. We find that it has no force. It
is a fraud played on the Constitution. A person who
plays fraud and obtains a false certificate cannot plead
estoppel. The principle of estoppel arises only when a
lawful promise was made and acted upon to his
detriment; the party making promise is estopped to
resile from the promise. In this case, the principle of
estoppel is inapplicable because there is no promise
made by the State that the State would protect
perpetration of fraud defeating the constitutional
objective; no promise was made that his false
certificate will be respected and accepted by the State.
On the other hand, he is liable for prosecution. The
courts would not lend assistance to perpetrate fraud on
the Constitution and he cannot be allowed to get the
benefit of the fraudulent certificate obtained from the
authorities. The declaration issued by the courts below
is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.”
37. The facts in cited case are that the respondent
was studying in the school, he was described as a member
of “Totti” community. The Presidential Notification issued
under Article 341(1) of the Constitution of India read with
Article 366(24) of the Constitution notifies “Totti” to be a
Scheduled Caste as Item No.67 of the Presidential
Notification. Subsequently, in 1970, the respondent had
obtained a certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer
indicating him to be “Kattunaicken” as item Item No.9 of
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
the list of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Tamilnadu
issued by the President under Article 342(1) read with
Article Article 366(2) of the Constitution. Subsequently,
the respondent had applied for permanent certificate; on
that basis an enquiry was conducted and it was found that
the respondent was not a Scheduled Tribe but is a
Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, the certificate came to be
cancelled. Impugning the said cancellation, the respondent
filed a civil suit for declaration that he is “Kattunaicken” as
a Scheduled Tribe. In this regard the suit filed by the
respondent is decreed and affirmed by the High Court of
Madras. In these factual matrixes, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the suit is not maintainable as per Section
9 of CPC. But in the present case on hand the plaintiffs are
not claiming change of caste and questioning any order of
District Caste Verification/Scrutiny Committee or any
order. Therefore, due to difference in factual matrix in the
above stated case and in the present case, the said
judgment is not applicable in the present case.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
38. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srish
Kumar Choudhury’s case (Supra) at Paragraph Nos.15,
16, 17, 21 and 22 has held as follows:
“15. Bhaiya Ram’s case (AIR 1971 SC 2533), the
tribe specified in the Scheduled Tribes Order was
Munda. The respondent was a Patar but he maintained
that it was included in the notified tribe. The Bench was
of the view that evidence was admissible for the
purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential
Order was intended to mean though evidence could not
be accepted for modifying the Order by including a new
tribe. Since the respondents’ case was that Patars were
Mundas, evidence could be given to show that the entry
‘Munda’ included ‘Patar’.
These authorities clearly indicate, therefore,
16.
that the entries in the Presidential Order have to be
taken as final and the scope of enquiry and
admissibility of evidence is confined within the
limitations indicated. It is, however, not open to the
court to make any addition or subtraction from the
Presidential Order.
17. The evidence in this case on which reliance has
been placed in support of the claim that Laskars are
included in the tribe described as
‘Tripura/Tripuri/Tippera’ mainly consists of two circulars
of the erstwhile State of Tripura. Circular No.9 is of
December 1930. There is a narration therein to the
following effect:
In this State Tripura Sampradaya means the
following five communities:
1. Puritan Tripura
2. Deshi Tripura (related to Laskar class)
3. Noatia
4. Jamatia
5. Riang.
18. xxx
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
19. xxx
20. xxx
21. Reservationhas become important in view of the
increasing competition in society and that probably had
led to the anxiety of the appellant and the people in his
community to claim reservation. As pointed out by the
Constitution Bench judgments which we have referred
to above, the basis on which inclusion into or exclusion
from the enumerated list made under Art. 342 is
contemplated is the changing economic, educational
and other situations of the members of any particular
tribe. Keeping that in view the State Government may
initiate appropriate proposals for modification in case it
is satisfied and after appropriate enquiry if the
authorities are satisfied that the claim is genuine and
tenable, amendment may be undertaken as provided
by the Constitution.
22. This Court has indicated in some of the
judgments referred to above that as a result of the
detailed enquiry made as to the economic status, the
level of education and the necessity of protection,
inclusion into or exclusion from the Order is made. The
material relating to the Laskar tribe in 1930 or 1941
may not have been considered sufficient before the
respective Orders were made for including the Laskars,
said to have been covered by the description of Deshi
Tripura. Therefore, even if historically this tribe was
covered by the general description of Tripura, that by
itself may not justify its inclusion in the Order as a
scheduled tribe. That is an additional feature which has
weighed with us in taking our decision not to interfere
in the matter.”
39. The facts in the cited case are that the
appellant is a resident of Tripura State and claims to
belong to the Laskar Community, which is recognized as a
Scheduled Tribe in the erstwhile State of Tripura. Members
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
of the Laskar Community freely enjoyed all the benefits
available to members of the Scheduled Tribes until in
1976. When the State Government decided to treat
members of that community as not belonging to the
Scheduled Tribes and issued instructions to the State
Authorities to implement this decision. Therefore, the
appellant filed writ petition before the Guwahati High
Court, requesting to be recognized as belonging to
Scheduled Tribe Community since he is a member of
Laskar Community. The contention of the State
Government was that Laskar Community was not a
Scheduled Tribe, in this friction the dispute went up to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there was no issue
regarding maintainability of the suit in the aforementioned
judgment. Thus, given the distinguishable features of the
facts in the present case, the above decision is not
applicable in the present case.
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
40. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.
Swvigaradoss’s case (supra) at Paragraph No.8 has held
as follows:
“8. The Courts, therefore, have no power except
to the effect to the notification issued by the President.
It is settled law that the Court would look into the
public notification under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1)
for a limited purpose. The notification issued by the
President and the Act of Parliament under Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act,
1976 and the Schedules appended thereto can be
looked into for the purpose to find whether the castes,
races or tribes are (sic or) parts of or groups within
castes, races or tribes shall be Scheduled Castes for the
purposes of the Constitution. Under the Amendment
Act, 1976, again Parliament has included or excluded
from schedules appended to the Constitution which are
now conclusive. Schedule I relates to Scheduled Castes
and schedule II relates to Scheduled Tribes. Christian is
not a Scheduled Caste under the notification issued by
the President. In view of the admitted position that the
petitioner was born of Christian parents and his parents
also were converted prior to his birth and no longer
remained to be Adi-Dravida, a Scheduled Caste for the
purpose of Tirunelvedi District in Tamil Nadu as notified
by the President, petitioner cannot claim to be a
Scheduled Caste. In the light of the constitutional
scheme civil court has no jurisdiction under Section 9 of
CPC to entertain the suit. The suit, therefore, is not
maintainable. The High Court, therefore, was right in
dismissing the suit as not maintainable and also not
giving any declaration sought for.”
41. The facts in the cited case are that the
petitioner’s parents were got converted to Christian
religion prior to his birth. The petitioner was born in the
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
Christian religion, but later, for the purpose of claiming
reservations, he stated that he belonged to Adi-Dravida
community. Also, the petitioner married a Christian girl.
By claiming the status as Adi-Dravida, he got employment
in the Government. Therefore, the Government issued a
notice for initiation of proceedings, then the petitioner has
filed suit. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the suit, in this
context, was not maintainable under Section 9 of CPC.
Therefore, since the petitioner was a Christian born to
Christian parents and claimed his caste as Adi-Dravida,
therefore, his prayer was turned down as the suit is not
maintainable. In view of this difference in factual matrix
between the cited case and in the present case, the above
cited decision is not applicable. In the present case the
plaintiff is not claiming that he belong to SC or ST or OBC.
What simply the prayer of the plaintiff is that he belongs
to “Hindu Gouli” caste. Whether he belong to “Hindu Gouli”
caste or not is the subject matter for adjudication in the
suit. The plaintiff may be able or may not be able to prove
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
his caste as “Hindu Gouli” and this disputed fact is purely
matter of adjudication before the Civil Court. The plaintiff
in the present suit has not claimed his caste belong to SC
or ST or OBC. Therefore, this difference in the factual
matrix makes the above said judgment is not applicable in
the present case.
42. Further, this Court in Kumari Shilpa Shrishail
Baragadagi’s case (supra) has discussed that respondent
claimed that she belong to Hindu Hatagar a backward
community, but wrongly entered in the school records as
Hindu Lingayat which is a forward caste; therefore, filed
suit for claiming benefit of reservations hence it was held
that the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the facts in
the cited case are that in the school records the caste is
wrongly mentioned as Hindu Lingayat, but she was
claiming belong to Hindu Hatagar community for claiming
benefit of reservations. Under these circumstances it was
held that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 9
of the CPC.
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
43. Here in the present case, the plaintiff has not
claimed that he is belonging to SC or ST or OBC. It is
simple prayer in the suit to enter in school records as he
belong to “Hindu Gouli” caste and his correct name as
“Aarush Kaladagi”. Therefore, difference in the factual
matrix in the above cited case and in the present case
therefore, the above said judgment is not applicable to the
present set of facts and circumstances.
44. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumari
Madhuri Patil’s case (supra), were pleased to issue
guidelines at Paragraph No.13, which is held as follows:
“13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment
wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status
certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the
genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC
candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the
benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The
genuine candidates are also denied admission to
educational institutions or appointments to office or
posts under a State for want of social status certificate.
The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained
entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in
completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee.
It is true that the applications for admission to
educational institutions are generally made by a parent,
since on that date many a time the student may be a
minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play
fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore,
necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
the earliest and with utmost expedition and
promptitude. For the purpose, it is necessary to
streamline the procedure for the issuance of social
status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval,
which may be the following:
1. The application for grant of social status
certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional
Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner
and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather
than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the
case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and
attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-
gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-
castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of
tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he
originally hails from and other particulars as may be
prescribed by the Directorate concerned.
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate
by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six
months in advance before seeking admission into
educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4. All the State Government shall constitute a
Committee of three officers, namely (I) an Additional or
Joint Secretary or any officer concerned, (II) the
Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class
Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of
Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate
knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social
status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes,
the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in
identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or
groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell
consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in
over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to
investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector
would go to the local place of residence and original
place from which the candidate hails and usually
resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
place from which he originally hailed from. The
vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all
the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate
or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He
should also examine the school records, birth
registration, if any. He should also examine the parent,
guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc.
or such other persons who have knowledge of the social
status of the candidate and then submit a report to the
Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in
the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes
relating to their peculiar anthropological and
ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of
marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead
bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities
concerned etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report
from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social
status to be “not genuine” or ‘doubtful’ or spurious or
falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned
should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the
report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a
registered post with acknowledgement due or through
the head of the educational institution concerned in
which the candidate is studying or employed. The
notice should indicate that the representation or reply,
if any, would be made within two weeks from the date
of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request
not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of
the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an
opportunity of hearing and claims an enquiry to be
made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such
representation/reply shall convene the committee and
the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall
give reasonable opportunity to the
candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in
support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum
or any other convenient mode may be published in the
village or locality and if any person or association
opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce
evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such
opportunity either in person or through counsel, the
Committee may make such inquiry as it deems
expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
objections raised by the candidate or opponent and
pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support
thereof.
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate
and found to be genuine and true, no further action
need be taken except where the report or the
particulars given are procured or found to be false or
fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same
procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.
8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued
to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor
to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his
or their support of the claim for the social status
certificates.
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously
as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within
such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry,
the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be
false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling
the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should
communicate within one month from the date of the
conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to
the parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalising the
proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for
admission into an educational institution or
appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the
candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other
authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the
basis of the social status certificate already issued or an
affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate
before the competent officer or non-official and such
admission or appointment should be only provisional,
subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny
Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall
be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
12. No suit or other proceedings before any
other authority should lie.
13. The High Court would dispose of these
cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of
three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ
petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by
a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against
that order to the Division Bench but subject to special
leave under Article 136.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social
status claimed is found to be false, the
parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for
making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a
conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be
regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude,
disqualification for elective posts or offices under the
State or the Union or elections to any local body,
legislature or Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the
Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate
obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation
simultaneously, it should be communicated to the
educational institution concerned or the appointing
authority by registered post with acknowledgement due
with a request to cancel the admission or the
appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational
institution responsible for making the admission or the
appointing authority, should cancel the
admission/appointment without any further notice to
the candidate and debar the candidate from further
study or continue in office in a post.”
45. In this cited case, the facts are that the
appellant had fraudulently obtained Schedule Tribe
certificate by approaching proper authority. Later on
during her fag end of academic carrier in completion of her
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
medical course, it was found that the said obtaining of
certificate is by way of fraudulent means and was about to
complete her medical course and to appear in the
examination. But her younger sister was not given the said
benefit. It was held that the appellant to which caste she
claimed to be belong to ‘Koli’ is coming within the category
as Other Backward Classes but not Scheduled Tribe as per
Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950. Therefore, in
the cited case, it was the subject matter that the appellant
had fraudulently obtained certificate claiming to belonging
to Scheduled Tribe category but virtually she belongs to
Other Backward Classes and obtained seat in medical
course.
46. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
issued guidelines as above cited. But in the present case
as above discussed, the facts and circumstances are
entirely different from the cited case. Here, the plaintiff is
not claiming any certificate that the “Hindu Gouli” caste
belongs to either SC or ST or OBC. The prayer in the plaint
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
is different. Therefore, having difference in factual matrix,
the above cited judgment is not applicable on behalf of the
contention taken by the defendant-State and other
departments.
47. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dayaram’s
case (supra), by following the directions issued in Kumari
Madhuri Patil’s case (supra), it was held that scheme
laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) to
continue in force till replaced by suitable legislature. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said judgment, in the
context of subject matter of claiming reservation on a
particular caste, laid down principle of law but in the
present case on hand, the question is exercising the civil
right of plaintiff that to change the name of caste and
plaintiff’s name in the school records as “Hindu Gouli” and
the name as “Aarush”.
48. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff is not
claiming benefit of either SC or ST or OBC. The Hon’ble
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
Apex Court in Dayaram’s case (supra) held for
declaration of particular caste belongs to SC or ST or OBC,
the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, this makes
difference in the factual matrix in the above cited case and
in the present case. Therefore, the above said judgment is
not applicable in the facts and circumstances and grounds
raised in this appeal. It was laid down in Kumari Madhuri
Patil’s case (supra) and in Dayaram’s case (supra)
against the order passed by the District Caste
Verification/Scrutiny Committee of caste, a civil suit is not
maintainable as per Section 9 of the CPC. Here, in the
present case, there is no order of District Caste
Verification/Scrutiny Committee against the plaintiffs.
Therefore, this judgment is not applicable in the present
case to say that the suit filed is not maintainable as per
Section 9 of CPC.
49. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K.P. Manu’s case
(supra), while dealing with the case that while a person
being a Hindu converted to another religion and on
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
reconversion to Hindu religion, then, during the eclipse of
original Hindu caste on conversion to another religion,
what are the principles applicable are stated at Paragraph
Nos.47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 by issuing guidelines as follows:
“47. The two principles that have been stated in
the aforesaid paragraph are : (i) that a court can look
into the notification by the President and the Act of
Parliament under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 and the
Scheduled appended thereto for the limited purpose to
find out whether the castes, races or tribes are parts or
groups within the castes, races or tribes, especially
Scheduled Castes for the purpose of Constitution, and it
is because what has been included or excluded therein
are conclusive; and (ii) that a person born to Christian
parents, who initially belonged to the Scheduled Caste,
even after his reconversion cannot claim to be a
Scheduled Caste. As far as first proposition of law is
concerned, there can be no cavil over the same and we
respectfully concur. As far as the second principle is
concerned, it is essential to note that the authorities of
larger Bench in Y. Mohan Rao, Kailash Sonkar and S.
Anbalagan were not brought to the notice of the Court
in Swvigaradoss case. Irrefragably, the second principle
runs contrary to the proposition laid down in the
Constitution Bench in Y. Mohan Rao and the decisions
rendered by the three-Judge Bench.
48. When a binding precedent is not taken
note of and the judgment is rendered in ignorance or
forgetfulness of the binding authority, the concept of
per incuria comes into play. In A.R. Antulay v. R.S.
Nayak, Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. (as His Lordship then
was) observed that: (SCC p. 652, para 42)
“42…. ‘Per incuriam’ are those decisions given in
ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent
statutory provision or of some inconsistent statutory
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
provision or of some authority binding on the court
concerned, so that in such cases some part of the
decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is
based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably
wrong.”
“47. … It is a settled rule that if a decision has been
given per incuriam the court can ignore it.”
49. In Union of India v. R.P. Singh, the Court observed
thus: (SCC p. 348, para 19)
“19. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, while dealing with the issue of ‘per
incuriam’, a two-Judge Bench, after referring to the
dictum in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. And certain
passages from Halsbury’s Laws of England and Union of
India v. Raghubir Singh, had ruled thus: (Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre case, SCC p. 743, para 138)
‘138. The analysis of English and Indian law clearly
leads to the irresistible conclusion that not only the
judgment of a larger strength is binding on a coequal
strength is also binding on a Bench of Judgges of coequal
strength. In the instant case, judgments mentioned in
paras 124 and 125 are by two or three Judges of this
Court. These judgments have clearly ignored a
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Sibbia case
which has comprehensively dealt with all the facets of
anticipatory bail enumerated under Section 438 CrPC.
Consequently, the judgments mentioned in paras 124 and
125 of this judgment are per incuriam.”
50. Tested on the aforesaid principles, it can safely be
concluded that the judgment in S. Swvigaradoss, as far as
the second principle is concerned, is per incuriam.
51. In the instant case, the appellant got married to a
Christian lady and that has been held against him. It has
also been opined that the could not produce any evidence
to show that he has been accepted by the community for
leading the life of a Hindu. As far as the marriage and
leading of Hindu life are concerned, we are of the
convinced opinion that, in the instant case, it really cannot
be allowed to make any difference. The community which
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
is a recognised organisation by the State Government has
granted the certificate in categorical terms in favour of the
appellant. It is the community which has the final say as
far as acceptance is concerned, for it accepts the person,
on reconversion, and takes him within its fold. Therefore,
we are inclined to hold that the appellant after
reconversion had come within the fold of the community
and thereby became a member of the Scheduled Caste.
Had the community expelled him the matter would have
been different. The acceptance is in continuum. Ergo, the
reasonings ascribed by the Scrutiny Committee which
have been concurred with by the High Court are wholly
unsustainable.”
50. The facts in the cited case are that the
appellant’s great grandfather belongs to ‘Hindu Pulaya’
community. His son Chothi embraced Christianity and
accepted a new name, i.e., Varghese who married Mariam
who originally belonged to ‘Hindu Ezhava’ and later on
converted to Christianity. From the wedlock, three sons
namely, Varghese, Yohannan and Paulose were born.
Paulose is father of the appellant, got married to
Kunjamma who was a Christian. The appellant was born
on 03.01.1960. Sometime in the year 1984, at the age of
24 converted himself to Hindu religion and changed his
name that of K.P. Manu. On the basis of the conversion,
he applied for a caste certificate to Akhila Bharata
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
Ayyappa Seva Sangham. After conversion, the appellant
had obtained certificate from the community concerned on
05.02.1984. Then, the Tahasildar who was authorised to
issue the caste certificate, had issued the necessary caste
certificate. Then, one Sri. Kumar Menon invoked
jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee challenging the
grant of caste certificate to the appellant. The Scrutiny
Committee had cancelled the said caste certificate.
Therefore, on the basis of the report of Scrutiny
Committee, the State Government took action and
directed the employer of the appellant to remove him from
service and recover a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards
salary paid to him. Then, the case went to High Court and
High Court has upheld the report of the Scrutiny
Committee and decision taken for removal of the appellant
from service. In this facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble
Apex Court had issued directions as above stated.
51. This Court has read over all the judgments and
considered principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
Court and this Court. In the case on hand, the question is
whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for seeking
declaration that to declare the caste name as “Hindu
Gouli” and the correct name is “Aarush” is maintainable in
the suit, is to be considered. In the present case, the
plaintiff has not sought for any benefits of belonging to SC
or ST or OBC. It is not a prayer of the plaintiff that to
declare his caste belongs to SC or ST or OBC. Therefore,
what endeavour the plaintiff is making that by claiming
that originally he was belonging to “Hindu Gouli”
community and his correct name is “Aarush” and
therefore, for identification purpose with the community,
he desires to enter the correct name and caste in the
school records.
52. Therefore, as discussed above the plaintiff’s suit
for change of name and the name of caste is maintainable
as per Section 9 of CPC, as the plaintiff is exercising his
civil right. As above discussed, a person born to his
parents and belonging to a particular caste is not choice of
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
the plaintiff. It is an act of God, but after birth, the plaintiff
has received some recognition and status in society, which
is to be protected for the plaintiff. This civil right accrued
in favour of plaintiff is an inherent right of the plaintiff.
Therefore, by no fault of his, when a mistake has crept in
changing the name of the plaintiff and changing name of
the caste, it certainly affects his fundamental right;
therefore, the civil right accrued in favour of the plaintiff
can be equated with the fundamental right as per Article
21 of the Constitution of India and also human rights.
53. If a person chooses a different religion or caste
by his choice, it is at his/her wisdom, but here the plaintiff
is a minor and did not know the worldly affairs while
getting admission to the school. The plaintiff, being a
minor, was under the complete mercy of his parents,
teachers and society and the plaintiff did not have any
choice to change his name and the name of caste or
religion. Hence, any error, intentionally or unintentionally
occurred, which takes away the civil right of a person can
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
be corrected in a competent Civil Court; therefore, the
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to consider the suit whenever
the suit is filed for correction of name and the name of
caste. Thus, in this regard, the suit filed by the plaintiff is
very well maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC, but at
the same time, claiming reservation by such
caste/community is not maintainable in the Civil Court.
This can be done only under the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990; therefore,
the First Appellate Court has failed to comprehend the
distinguishable feature in this regard as above discussed.
54. In the present case, the plaintiff is not claiming
any prayer of reservation as per his name and caste, but
simply the prayer of the plaintiff is to correct his name and
name of caste, as it is the recourse available to the
plaintiff by way of correctional remedy by filing a suit in
this regard.
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
55. As discussed above, whether the plaintiff is
entitled benefit of caste is the question to be determined
by the DCVC under the act. This makes a difference of
authority and jurisdiction between the District Verification
Committee (DCVC) and the Civil Court. Therefore, if there
is any prayer for correction of name, surname, caste and
religion, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the
same in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence
adduced thereto in this regard.
56. Considering the present case, the First
Appellate Court has committed error in holding that the
Civil Court does not have jurisdiction. The First Appellate
Court has misinterpreted the principle of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court without understanding the
facts and circumstance involved in those cases and in a
mechanical way has held that the Civil Court does not
have jurisdiction. This finding of the First Appellate Court
is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside and for the
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
reasons above stated, the suit filed by the plaintiff for the
reliefs claimed is maintainable under Section 9 of CPC.
57. Further, the First Appellate Court has held that
the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction, but has also
discussed on merits by appreciating the evidence on
record and dismissed the suit. The findings given by the
First Appellate Court are found to be perverse as they are
contrary to the evidence on record.
58. The First Appellate Court while appreciating the
documentary evidence Ex.P-3-transfer certificate,
observed that in the said Ex.P-3, certificate of caste and
religion of the plaintiff is not mentioned. This finding is not
correct as it is contrary to the evidence on record. Ex.P-3
is the transfer certificate of father of the plaintiff. The
father’s name is mentioned as Rakesh Babu Kaladagi and
the caste and religion is found at Column-VII as "Hindu
Gouli"; therefore, when there is clear mention in Ex.P-3-
transfer certificate that the father of the plaintiff belongs
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
to the caste and religion as "Hindu Gouli", the First
Appellate Court has observed that there is no such caste
and religion mentioned. The First Appellate Court has not
looked into and appreciated the documentary evidence
Ex.P-3 properly. Hence, Ex.P-3-transfer certificate of the
father of the plaintiff, it is evident that the father of the
plaintiff belongs to the caste and religion as "Hindu Gouli".
59. Ex.P-1 is the birth certificate of the plaintiff. In
the birth certificate, the name of the plaintiff is mentioned
as "Aarush Kaladagi", and the name of the father is stated
as "Rakesh Kaladagi" and the mother's name is shown as
"Munni Kaladagi". Hence, this Ex.P-1-birth certificate
proves the fact that the name of the plaintiff's is "Aarush
Kaladagi" and the said birth certificate was registered on
07.08.2007; therefore, at the very initial point of time, the
birth of the plaintiff was registered with the authority of
Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths and accordingly
Ex.P-1-birth certificate is issued.
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
60. Further, Ex.P-2 is the caste certificate of the
sister of the plaintiff. The name of sister is "Tanu Kaladagi"
and the father and mother name of the plaintiff are
mentioned as "Rakesh Kaladagi" and "Munni Kaladagi" and
it is also mentioned that the sister belongs to Backward
Class of Category-I and belongs to "Hindu Gouli" caste.
Therefore, all these documentary evidence referred above
unequivocally and clearly prove the fact that the correct
name of the plaintiff is "Aarush Kaladagi" and the caste
and religion is "Hindu Gouli". In this regard, the Trial Court
has correctly appreciated the evidence on record, but the
First Appellate Court has committed error in appreciating
the evidence on record.
61. Further, Ex.P-4 is the certificate issued by the
th
4 defendant-school in which the name of the plaintiff is
shown as "Shahid Kaladagi" son of "Rakesh". Therefore,
defendant No.4-school has issued certificate in error by
showing wrong name of the plaintiff as "Shahid Kaladagi".
If the plaintiff's name is "Shahid", normally this name is
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
refers to the Mohammadian community, but the father's
name is shown as "Rakesh". Therefore, Ex.P-4 certificate
is found to be a wrong certificate infringing the civil right
of the plaintiff. Hence, when correction of name and caste
name of the plaintiff is sought, the suit filed by the plaintiff
is maintainable under Section 9 of CPC.
Further, Exs.P-5 and P-6 are the Aadhar cards
62.
of the plaintiff’s father and plaintiff. In these records of
Aadhar card, the name of the plaintiff is shown as "Aarush
Rakesh Kaladagi" and the plaintiff’s father name is shown
as "Rakesh Kaladagi". Hence, from the evidence on record
as discussed above and appreciated, the plaintiff has
proved that his correct name is "Aarush kaladagi" and he
belongs to the caste and religion of "Hindu Gouli". Hence,
the Trial Court is correct in decreeing the suit. Therefore,
the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is
liable to be confirmed and the judgment and decree
passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
aside. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the
Affirmative and point Nos.(ii) and (iii) in the Negative .
63. Before parting with the judgment, this Court
places on record its deep appreciation for the well-
researched and valuable assistance rendered by Research
Assistant, namely Smt. Pushpa R., and her valuable
research helped the Court to take a correct conclusion.
Accordingly, the Court places its appreciation on Research
Assistant, namely Smt. Pushpa R., on record.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
64.
ORDER
i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed .
ii. The judgment and decree dated
08.09.2025 passed in R.A.No.35/2022 by
the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Dharwad, is set aside.
iii. The judgment and decree dated
28.01.2022 passed in O.S.No.610/2019
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:8405
RSA No. 100023 of 2026
HC-KAR
by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Dharwad, is confirmed.
iv. No order as to costs.
v. Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
SRA
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1