Bangalore District Court
Sri.V.Parameshwara vs State Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.7).
Dated: This the 1st Day of October 2015.
Present: Sri. M.S.Patil, B.Sc., LL.B.
XXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Bengaluru.
O. S. No. 1 4 3 6 / 2015
Plaintiff: Sri.V.Parameshwara,
s/o.Venkateshulu,
aged about 47 years, r/at No.8,
Behind Pooja Bakery, Balaji Layout,
Kodigehalli Main Road,
Bengaluru-560094.
By Sri.Narasimha Murthy, Advocate.
Vs.
Defendants: 1. State of Karnataka,
By its Chief Secretary,
Department of Education,
Ambedkar Veedi, Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru.
2. The Secretary,
The Karnataka Secondary Education
Board, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.
3. The Head Master,
Dafodils English School,
4th Main, R.M.V.2nd Stage,
Sanjayanagar, Bengaluru-560094.
4. Head Mistress,
Florence English High School,
R.M.V. 2nd Stage Extension,
Sanjayanagar, Bengaluru-560094.
2 O.S.No.1436/2015
5. The Director,
The Karnataka Secondary Education
Board, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.
D1 to 5 - Exparte.
Date of institution of suit 11-02-2015
Nature of the suit Declaration
Date of commencement of 28-09-2015
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 01-10-2015
was pronounced
Total duration Days Months Years
20 07 -0-
JUDGMENT
This suit filed by the plaintiff against the above named defendants is for declaration to declare the name of plaintiff's daughter as 'Anuhya Vaagita', instead of 'Hasika.P.V.' and to direct the defendants to get the name of daughter of plaintiff entered in their school records as 'Anuhya Vaagita' instead of 'Hasika.P.V.' and to grant such other reliefs, which Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the plaint averments that, the plaintiff has got a daughter, by name Hasika.P.V. who has studied from 1st Standard to 5th Standard in the school of 4th defendant and later, she has started studying in the school of 3rd defendant from 6th Standard and now she is studying in the 3rd defendant School in 10th standard and that, the name of daughter of plaintiff is Hasika.P.V. and when the plaintiff has asked to the Astrologers and 3 O.S.No.1436/2015 numerologists, regarding favorable and good name to his daughter, they have directed plaintiff to get the name of his daughter Hasika.P.V. changed to 'Anuhya Vaagita' for her bright future and as per prediction of numerologist and astrologer, the plaintiff intends to change the name of his daughter from Hasika.P.V. to Anuhya Vaagita for all practical purposes and further, the plaintiff had approached the defendant No.3 and 4, school authorities, to change the name of his daughter in their school records as 'Anuhya Vaagita' instead of existing name 'Hasika.P.V.' and he has been informed by these school authorities, that, the name of his daughter cannot be changed, except through the decree of the Court and the plaintiff left with no other alternative, but to approach this Court of law, for redressal of his grievances and accordingly, he has filed this suit for declaration of name of his daughter as 'Anuhya Vaagita' instead of 'Hasika.P.V.' and to direct defendants to change the name of his daughter as 'Anuhya Vaagita' in all her school records and for that purpose, the plaintiff has issued legal notice to the defendants, as they are Government and Government Authorities, as required under Section 80 of C.P.C., on 20-10-2014 and that, the defendants did not take any action. Hence, this suit filed by the plaintiff against these defendants.
4 O.S.No.1436/20153. Though defendants were served with summons, they did not appear before Court on the date fixed for their appearance, and hence, they are placed exparte.
4. The following Points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get his daughter's name changed as 'Anuhya Vaagita' instead of her earlier name 'Hasika.P.V.'?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the name of his daughter 'Hasika.P.V.' changed as 'Anuhya Vaagita' in all her school records?
3. What Decree or Order?
5. The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and relied upon 10 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P10 and closed his side.
6. Heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for the plaintiff.
7. My answer to the above Points are as under:
Point No.1 - in the Affirmative; Point No.2 - in the Affirmative; Point No.3 - as per Final Order below; for the following:5 O.S.No.1436/2015
Reasons
8. Point No1. : The plaintiff contends that, he has got a daughter by name 'Hasika.P.V.' and that, she has studies from 1st standard to 5th standard in the school of 4th defendant and now she is studying in 10th standard from 6th standard in the school of defendant No.3 and that, the plaintiff, on enquiry to astrologer and numerologist about the favorable and good name for his daughter for her bright future, he is advised by the numerologist and astrologer that her name should be changed from 'Hasika.P.V.' to 'Anuhya Vaagita' and accordingly, the plaintiff has decided to change the name of his daughter 'Hasika.P.V.' as 'Anuhya Vaagita' and for this purpose, he requested the school authorities, i.e., defendant No.3 and 4 to change the name of his daughter as 'Anuhya Vaagita', by deleting her existing name 'Hasika.P.V.' in all her school records and these school authorities have informed him that, they cannot change the existing name of his daughter to some other name, except with the decree of the Court and therefore, the plaintiff, left with no other alternative, has approached this Court for declaration to declare the name of plaintiff as 'Anuhya Vaagita' and to direct defendants 3 and 4 to change in their school records regarding name of 'Hasika.P.V.' as 'Anuhya Vaagita' and that, the plaintiff has issued legal notices to defendants as 6 O.S.No.1436/2015 required under Section 80 C.P.C., since these defendants are Government and Government authorities. Hence this suit.
9. The plaintiff, who is examined as P.W.1, has reiterated the same facts of his contentions in his evidence before this Court.
10. The plaintiff has relied upon Exs.P1 to P10, which are: Ex.P1-School Certificate of daughter of plaintiff, Ex.P2 -Transfer Certificate of daughter of plaintiff, Ex.P3 -legal notice issued to Defendants 1 to 5, Exs.P4 & P5-two acknowledgements, Exs.P6 to P8-three postal receipts, Ex.P9-copy of ration card and Ex.P10-copy of Adhar card
11. The evidence of P.W.1 is fully corroborated by the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P10.
12. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
1). Miss.A.Ashwini vs. The State of Karnataka and 7 others, reported in R.F.A. No.1401/2013, wherein it is held that:
" 4. .... ..... ... Since the plaintiff is now a major and it would be her choice to call herself by whatever name, there can be no impediment in this regard as long as bona fides in such claim are ascertained. It is evident that the suit was filed through the 7 O.S.No.1436/2015 father of the girl of which there is no dispute and since it was their wish that she shall be called by the name of "Shreedevi" on account of religious and astrological beliefs, there is no impediment in permitting any such change in the name.
Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the court below is set-aside. The suit is decreed as prayed for. The respondents shall carry out corrections in all the records showing the change of name of the appellant as "A.Shreedevi" instead of "A.Ashwini".
2). Sri Saveen Shivaputra Nari @ Saveen Nari @ Saveen vs. Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board reported in R.F.A. No.1357/2012, wherein at para 7, page7, it is held that:
" .... ... ... It is true that this discrepancies or names called in different names cause inconvenience and the plaintiff/appellant has to face different situation especially when he is before the Election Commission for various purposes or before the Verification Officer for different purposes. In order to avoid this situation or inconvenience it is open to any person to get his name changed from prevailing name to new name. It is pertinent to state that it is not necessary that only the circumstances to state that it is not necessary that only the circumstances of this nature the person can get his name changed to any person at any point of time if his name found right can get his name changed by approaching the competent court seeking declaration. I hold that the court has erred in rejecting the suit by assigning the reasons that the plaintiff/appellant should have approached the court for declaration when discrepancies in the educational records is 8 O.S.No.1436/2015 found, for which the Government order is passed to change the name is an error and it is clarified that person has got right to get his name changed. It is not the case or situation where a party wants to change his name for committing fraud or any of the illegal activities, then the person who gets his name changed is liable for criminal proceedings.
.... .... ... "
13. My view is supported by the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka stated supra.
14. The defendants have not produced any rebuttal evidence to rebut the evidence of P.W.1 and to disprove Exs.P1 to P10. Therefore, in view of evidence of P.W.1, which is fully corroborated by documents marked as Exs.P1 to P10 and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence produced by defendants to disprove oral evidence of P.W.1 and to rebut Exs.P1 to P10, I hold that, the plaintiff has proved this Point. Accordingly, I hold Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
15. Point No.2: In view of my answer to Point No.1 in the Affirmative, I hold Point No.2 also in the Affirmative.
16. Point No. 3 : In view of the foregoing reasons and in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
9 O.S.No.1436/2015ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is hereby declared that the name of daughter of plaintiff as "Anuhya Vaagita"
instead of her existing name "Hasika.P.V."
and further, the defendants are directed to change the existing name of daughter of plaintiff, i.e., "Hasika.P.V." as "Anuhya Vaagita" in all her school records.
The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, computerised print-out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 1st day of October 2015.) (M.S.PATIL) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, *sb Bengaluru.
10 O.S.No.1436/2015ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 V.Parameshwara List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1- school certificate of daughter of plaintiff Ex.P2 -T.C. of daughter of plaintiff Ex.P3 - legal notice issued to Defendants 1 to 5 Exs.P4 & P5 - 2 acknowledgements Exs.P6 to P8 - 3 postal receipts Ex.P9 - copy of ration card Ex.P10 - copy of Adhar card List of witnesses examined and documents marked for defendants:
Nil (M.S.PATIL) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.11 O.S.No.1436/2015
01-10-2015 Judgment passed and pronounced in Open Court. (vide separate Judgment). Operative portion thereof reads as under:
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is hereby declared that the name of daughter of plaintiff as "Anuhya Vaagita" instead of her existing name "Hasika.P.V." and further, the defendants are directed to change the existing name of daughter of plaintiff, i.e., "Hasika.P.V." as "Anuhya Vaagita" in all her school records.
The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XXII A.C.C. & S.J., Bengaluru.