Bangalore District Court
Neethu vs State Of Karnataka, Reptd By Chief ... on 3 August, 2024
KABC010109832024 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT
AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.13)
Present: Sri. ONKARAPPA.R, B.Sc., LL.B.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2024
O.S.No.2972/2024
PLAINTIFF:- :Neethu,
D/o Mohan.J.H,
Aged about 17 years
R/at No.109, Maruthi Nilaya,
Govt. School Road,
Appanna Building,
Jakkur, Bengaluru North.
Since minor represented by
her natural guardian father
Sri. Mohan J.H
(By Sri. VM, Advocate)
-Versus-
DEFENDANTS:- : 1. State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru.
2. The Dy. Director of Public
Instructions, Bengaluru
North Zone, K.G. Road,
Opp. Cauvery Bhavan,
Bengaluru.
3. The Block Education Officer,
Bengaluru North Zone-4,
NES Office Road,
Near NES Bus Stop,
Suggappa Layout,
East Colony,
Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
4. Rashtrotthana Vidhya Kendra,
Rep. by its Principal,
Arkavathi Layout,
2
O.S.No.2972/2024
Thanisandra Main Road,
Bengaluru.
5. The Central Board of
Secondary Education,
Rep. by its Regional Officer,
Gnana Bharathi Main Road,
Chandralayout Extension
II Stage, Nagarabhaavi,
Bengaluru.
6. Department of Pre University
Education, Rep. by its Director,
18th Cross, Sampige Road,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru.
7. Chetana Pre University
College, Rep. by its principal,
C.A. 29, 5th Phase,
KHB Colony, Yelahanka
New Town, Bengaluru.
(D.1 to 3 - I ADGP
D.4, 6 & 7- Ex-parte
D.5- Sri. KPR advocate )
Date of institution of the Suit : 23/04/2024
Declaration & Mandatory
Nature of the Suit :
injunction.
Date of commencement of recording of 19/07/2024
:
evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 03/08/2024
:
pronounced
Total Duration Year Months Days
:
00 03 10
[ ONKARAPPA.R ]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
3
O.S.No.2972/2024
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The plaintiff has filed the suit for relief of name declaration
of his minor daughter and also for mandatory injunction.
2. Brief facts are as under:-
That, the minor plaintiff born on 24/06/2007 to the spouse
of Smt. Yashodha.S and Sri. Mohan.J.H and she was named as
Neethu. Thereafter the minor plaintiff was admitted to defendant
No.4 school for her primary and secondary education. The minor
plaintiff successfully completed her secondary education in May
2023. Subsequently the minor plaintiff was admitted to defendant
No.7 college for I PUC and the minor plaintiff is now studying II
PUC. As the minor plaintiff facing difficulties in her studies and
health issues the parents of minor plaintiff consulted an astrologer
and they got to know that minor plaintiff's name was not tallying
with her horoscope and their astrologer suggested to change
minor plaintiff name from Neethu to J.M. Reetu Raksha.
Accordingly, on 13/10/2023 the plaintiff sworn to an affidavit
through her mother before notary to change her name and also
took paper publication in two daily news papers on 16/10/2023.
Thereafter the plaintiff approached the defendants requesting to
change her name from Neethu to J.M. Reetu Raksha in all her
marks card and educational documents. But the defendants
informed them to obtain a decree from civil court. Cause of action
for the suit aroused on 24/06/2007 and subsequent dates. The
plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court
4
O.S.No.2972/2024
fee. The plaintiff has paid the required court fee on plaint.
Hence, the plaintiff sought for decreed the suit.
3. Suit summons served on defendant No.4,6 and 7, but
they have not turned up and remained absent at before the court.
Hence, they were placed ex-parte vide order sheet dated
11/06/2024. Learned I ADGP appeared on behalf of defendant
No.1 to 3 and he chosen to filed the written statement of
defendant No.2 along with memo of adoption by defendant No.1
and 3. In view of the memo written statement of defendant No.2
have also adopted on behalf of defendant No.1 and 3. Wherein
the written statement, it contended suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The
allegations made against the defendants authority are all false
and denied, the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same. The
defendants cannot act to the whims and fancies of the plaintiff.
They are abide by the rules and regulations followed by the
department. As per the particulars furnished by the parents of
the students which were supported by documents will be entered
during admission and same will be continued and reflected in
student's school and educational records. As per the circular
issued by the commissioner of education department there is no
provision to change name of the student in the school records.
The averments made in para 2 to 11 of the plaint has no legal
relevancy and the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same.
There is no fault or mistake on the part of the defendants as the
plaintiff himself willing to change his name. The parents have
5
O.S.No.2972/2024
given the details of the student during the time of admission will
be taken to the records and maintained by the defendants.
Therefore without any fault of these defendants they are dragged
to the court and made to bear heavy litigation expenses and
changing of plaintiff name in the school records involves laborious
procedures to be followed by the department and unnecessarily
consumes the precious public time and money. The plaintiff has
studied in CBSE board. Hence, these defendants are not
necessary parties to the suit. The Government of India has not
been made as party to the suit and the plaintiff has not issued
statutory notice under Section 80 of CPC. Hence, suit not
maintainable as non joinder of necessary parties as well as non
issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC. There is no cause of
action for the suit and the alleged one is imaginary. One these
grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost.
4. Defendant No.5 appeared through their learned counsel
and he chosen to filed the written statement. Wherein the written
statement, defendant No.5 have contended, suit of the plaintiff is
not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The suit is
speculative in nature, bereft of merits, lacks bonafide and requires
to be dismissed. There is no cause of action against these
defendants. This court has no jurisdiction to decide the subject
matter. Suit is barred for non issuance of statutory notice as
required under the law. Defendant No.5 have denied the entire
averments of the plaint as false. Defendant No.5 is a unit of
Union of India serving the educational institution. There is no
6
O.S.No.2972/2024
fault on the part of the office of defendant No.5, such being the
case suit against them liable to be dismissed. As per the
direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No.3905/2011 in
Jigya Yadav Vs. CBSE, wherein suitable action shall be taken by
the Board after receipt of compliance of the plaintiff candidate as
per para 170 and 171(b) of the said judgment. If the application
for recording correction is based on the school records as it
obtained at the time of publication of results and issue of
certificate by the CBSE it will be open to CBSE to provide or
reasonable limitation period within which the application for
recording correction in certificate issued by it may be entertained
by it. However, if the request for recording change is based on
changes school records post the publication of results and issue
of certificate by the CBSE, in this situation the candidate cannot
claim that she had no knowledge about the change recorded in
the school records. Further the plaint lacks basic information
regarding the school, roll number and year of passing board
examination of the plaintiff, as such defendant No.5 unable to
identify the candidate and also to ascertain whether it pertains to
CBSE or not. For the above all basis defendant No.5 have
sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the above narrated pleadings this court
has framed the issues as follow:
7
O.S.No.2972/2024
1) Whether natural guardian of the plaintiff
proves that his minor daughter's correct
name is 'J.M. Reetu Raksha' and not as
'Neethu' ?
2) Whether natural guardian of the plaintiff is
entitled for the relief of declaration and
mandatory injunction as sought for ?
3) Whether natural guardian of the plaintiff is
entitled for suit reliefs as sought for ?
4) What order or decree?
6. To prove the plaintiff's case, the natural guardian of
minor plaintiff himself has examined as PW-1 and he got marked
Ex.P.1 to P.8 and Ex.P.8(a) documents. Neither of the defendants
have not chosen to examined any of the witness, on their behalf
including themselves.
7. Heard the argument on both sides. Perused the
material on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following:
8
O.S.No.2972/2024
-: R E A S O N S :-
9. Issue Nos.1 to 3:- The plaintiff's specific case
herein one for declaration of the name of minor plaintiff at in
all her educational records. Therefore, Issue No.1 to 3 are
overlapping with the each other. Accordingly, Issue No.1 to
3 have taken for the common discussion to avoid the
repetition of facts.
10. As per the deposition of P.W.1, the minor plaintiff born
on 24/06/2007 as per Ex.P.4 birth certificate to the spouse of
Smt. Yashodha.S and Sri. Mohan.J.H. Not in dispute at Ex.P.1
study certificate, Ex.P.2 migration certificate, Ex.P.3 SSLC marks
card, Ex.P.4 birth certificate as well as Ex.P.5 bonafide certificate
it could be seen the name of minor plaintiff mentioned as Neethu.
The parents of minor plaintiff wish to changed the name of minor
plaintiff as she was facing difficulties in her studies and also due
to health issues. Hence, parents of minor plaintiff have
approached the family astrologer along with her horoscope. On
enquiry about the minor plaintiff's health, educational and future
prospects, said astrologer advised that it very much necessary to
bring changed the minor plaintiff's name. According to
astrological reasons, religious customs and beliefs and also in
the interest of minor plaintiff's and her future prospects, parents
of minor plaintiff do not want to continue the minor plaintiff's name
as Neethu. Hence, parents of minor plaintiff decide to changed
the minor plaintiff's name from Neethu to J.M. Reetu Raksha. As
9
O.S.No.2972/2024
such parents of minor plaintiff approached defendant No.4 school
with the request to change the name of minor plaintiff in their
records from Neethu to J.M. Reetu Raksha. To know by the
public minor plaintiff's want to changed her name from Neethu to
J.M. Reetu Raksha mother of minor plaintiff has sworn the
affidavit dated 13/10/2023 before notary public as per Ex.P.6.
Further as to know the intention of minor plaintiff by the public
P.W. 1 also cause published the notification at in daily news
papers viz., City Bengaluru Express and Kannada Prabha on
16/01/2023 as per Ex.P.7, P.7(a) and P8, P8(a). Despite the
defendants have not complied the request of the plaintiff.
Hence, cause of action to the present suit have been aroused to
the plaintiff. Case of the plaintiff that, due to horoscopic and
astrological reason the plaintiff decide to changed the name of
minor plaintiff from Neethu to J.M. Reetu Raksha. The same
such will and wish of the plaintiff have carried out by him at
through notary affidavit at Ex.P.6 as well as Ex.P.7, P.7(a) and
Ex.P.8, P.8(a) paper notifications. The same case theory of the
plaintiff herein substantiated by corroborating the oral evidence
with documentary evidence inspite of lengthy cross-examination.
On the other hand to uphold the theory of the defendants case no
material available on the case record to appreciated the case of
defendants. It also pertinent to note, the present case of the
minor plaintiff is only with respect to change of her name on the
basis of astrological background and not else to changed either
her caste or religion. Accordingly, the plaintiff's cardinal case that
10
O.S.No.2972/2024
she propose to changed her name from Neethu to J.M. Reetu
Raksha on the astrological background and horoscope herein
remains as unshaken. Only the claim of the plaintiff herein on
the advice of his astrologer and for better future prospects he
propose to changed his daughter's name from Neethu to J.M.
Reetu Raksha.
11. Not in dispute that minor plaintiff is not a government
servant. Though the plaintiff fail to produce Kundali or report of
Astrologer, the anxiety and hastiness of the natural guardian of
minor plaintiff to make change his daughter's name is here
evident that the plaintiff required to change of his daughter's
name from Neethu to J.M. Reetu Raksha. Further, the law
settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka with respect to
faith and honour Astrological advise to the parties in an judgment
observed in RFA No.322/2013 dated 10/12/2013 (Gunda
Naika.P.S Vs. The State of Karnataka) that there is no
impediment to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff stating
that, the efficacy of the astrological advice cannot be tested in
the courts of law.
12. So, in the circumstances of the case, the name of the
minor plaintiff has to be changed by the defendants as 'J.M.
Reetu Raksha' instead of 'Neethu'. This view has also
been supported by the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court
passed in RFA No.284/2014 (DEC) dated 02/09/2016. Therefore,
having regard to facts and circumstances of the cases, I am of the
11
O.S.No.2972/2024
opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and
mandatory Injunction as observed supra. Hence, I answer Issue
No.1 to 3 are in the affirmative.
13. Issue No.4 :- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed
to pass the following;
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff hereby decreed.
That hereby declared the minor daughter's name of the plaintiff J.M. Reetu Raksha instead of Neethu.
The defendants hereby directed to rectify the same in the minor plaintiff's educational records accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and signed by me and pronounced in the open Court this the 3rd day of August, 2024) [ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 12 O.S.No.2972/2024 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff :
PW.1 Mohan.J.H List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Study certificate Ex.P2 Migration certificate Ex.P3 SSLC marks card Ex.P4 Birth certificate Ex.P5 Bonafide certificate Ex.P6 Affidavit Ex.P7 English Daily news paper Ex.P7(a) Relevant portion Ex.P8 Kannada Daily news paper Ex.P8(a) Relevant portion List of documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 13 O.S.No.2972/2024 When I taken up the case record for pass an judgment it came to be noticed though the application under Section 80(2) of C.P.C pending for consideration the same application have not yet to be considered. Wherein the said application the plaintiff have sought for dispensation of the notice issued under Section 80(1) of C.P.C in against the defendants. By take note of the reason stated in the affidavit annexed to the application and since neither of the defendants have not oppose to allowed the application, the same application hereby allowed. Consequently, 60 days prior notice to all the defendants hereby dispensed.
V ACC&SJ, Bengaluru. 14 O.S.No.2972/2024 Operative portion of the judgment pronounced in open court vide separate judgment:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff hereby decreed.
That hereby declared the minor daughter's name of the plaintiff J.M. Reetu Raksha instead of Neethu.
The defendants hereby directed to rectify the same in the minor plaintiff's educational records accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU 15 O.S.No.2972/2024 16 O.S.No.2972/2024