Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri K. Srinivasa, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2023 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in R.A.No.214/2021. The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2012 passed by the I Additional I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru, in O.S.No.921/2011. The Trial Court had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring his date of birth as 13.07.1964 and directing the defendants to enter the same in the school records. The plaintiff claimed that his correct date of birth was 13.07.1964, but the school records showed a different date. The Trial Court, based on a school transfer certificate, granted the declaration. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his case as he did not examine himself or any witness to prove the transfer certificate, and the certificate was not proved in accordance with law. In the Regular Second Appeal, the appellant argued that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's judgment. The High Court, after hearing the counsel, found that no substantial question of law arose. The Court noted that the First Appellate Court, being the final court of fact, had correctly reappreciated the evidence and found that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof. The plaintiff did not step into the witness box, and the transfer certificate was not proved by examining its author. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the First Appellate Court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court in a Regular Second Appeal cannot reappreciate evidence unless there is a perverse finding or substantial question of law. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity in the First Appellate Court's judgment. (Paras 2-4)
B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Sections 101, 102, 103 - Date of Birth - The plaintiff must prove his date of birth by producing reliable evidence. The school transfer certificate relied upon by the plaintiff was not proved by examining the author or any official from the school, and the plaintiff did not step into the witness box. Hence, the burden of proof was not discharged. (Paras 2-3)
C) Civil Procedure - First Appeal - Reversal of Trial Court Judgment - The First Appellate Court, being the final court of fact, is entitled to reappreciate evidence and reverse findings if the trial court's conclusions are not supported by evidence. The First Appellate Court correctly held that the plaintiff failed to prove his case. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's judgment and decree declaring the plaintiff's date of birth as 13.07.1964, and whether any substantial question of law arises in this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 03.07.2023 in R.A.No.214/2021, which had set aside the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 07.04.2012 in O.S.No.921/2011.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Evidence Act
- 1872 - Section 101
- Section 102
- Section 103
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908 - Section 100
- Regular Second Appeal
- Substantial question of law
- Reappreciation of evidence
- Concurrent findings of fact
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (07) 66
Srikanth M.P., Sateesh N. Kattalagi (for appellant), Smt. Radha Ramaswamy (AGA for respondents)
The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, The Secretary, Karnataka Secondary Education Board, The Joint Director, Public Education Department, Mysuru Division, The Head Master, Kannada Practicing Middle School, Mysuru, The Head Master/Vice Principal, Bifurcated Maharajas High School (Maharaja Junior College), Mysuru
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of date of birth and correction of school records.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff (appellant) sought a declaration that his date of birth is 13.07.1964 and a direction to the defendants to enter the same in the school records.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff claimed that his correct date of birth was 13.07.1964, but the school records showed a different date, and he wanted it corrected.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (I Additional I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru) decreed the suit on 07.04.2012 in O.S.No.921/2011, declaring the date of birth as 13.07.1964 and directing the defendants to enter the same. The First Appellate Court (II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru) allowed the appeal in R.A.No.214/2021 on 03.07.2023, setting aside the Trial Court's judgment and decree.
Issues
Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's judgment and decree declaring the plaintiff's date of birth as 13.07.1964?
Whether any substantial question of law arises in this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's judgment, as the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence.
The respondents argued that the First Appellate Court correctly found that the plaintiff failed to prove his case, as he did not examine himself or any witness to prove the school transfer certificate.
Ratio Decidendi
In a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless there is a substantial question of law or perverse finding. The First Appellate Court, being the final court of fact, correctly held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish his date of birth, as he did not step into the witness box and the school transfer certificate was not proved in accordance with law.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is filed against reversal of the judgment of the Trial Court, wherein the Trial Court granted the relief of declaration declaring the date of birth of plaintiff as 13.07.1964 and also directed to enter the date of birth as 13.07.1964.
The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved his case.
The plaintiff has not stepped into the witness box and also not examined any witness to prove the transfer certificate.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.921/2011 before the I Additional I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru, seeking declaration of his date of birth as 13.07.1964 and correction of school records. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 07.04.2012. The defendants appealed to the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in R.A.No.214/2021, which allowed the appeal on 03.07.2023, setting aside the Trial Court's judgment. The plaintiff then filed the present Regular Second Appeal No.1318/2023 before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed on 03.07.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 101, 102, 103
