Bangalore District Court
S.Rahul vs The Deputy Director Of Public on 31 October, 2015
C.R.P. 67) Govt. Of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH.NO.12)
PRESENT : SRI MANJUNATH NAYAK,
B.A.L.,LL.B.,
XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
DATED: 31st OCTOBER, 2015.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.4322/2014
*****
PLAINTIFFS: 1. S.Rahul, Aged 11 years,
S/o K. Shivakumar,
Since minor, represented by
His father and natural guardian,
K.Shivakumar, Aged 43 years,
S/o Late Kempaiah.
2. Smt. R. Thara, Aged 33 years,
W/o K. Shivakumar,
Both are R/a No.2, 26th Block,
Magadi Road, Police Colony,
Bengaluru-560 023.
(By Sri C. Shankar Reddy, Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANTS: 1. The Deputy Director of Public
Instruction, Bengaluru South,
Shikshakara Bhavana,
K.G. Road, Bengaluru-560 009.
2. The Block Education Development
Officer, Bengaluru South Zone-2,
Balepete, Bengaluru-560 053.
2
3. The Pine Woods English High
School, No.1, 8th Main Road,
NHCS Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru-560040.
4. The Government of Karnataka,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001.
(Placed Exparte and Absent)
****
Date of institution of the suit 11-06-2014
Nature of the suit: MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of the commencement 26-09-2015
of recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 31-10-2015
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 04 20
*******
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs filed this suit claiming decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff No.1 as Chandrakanth S instead of Rahul S in all his school records.
2. The case of the plaintiffs, as made out in the plaint, is as follows:
The plaintiff No.1 was born on 20-07-2003 and his name was Chandrakanth S. While admitting to school, name of the plaintiff No.1 was entered as Rahul S. The plaintiffs came from the traditional Hindu family and on account of 3 O.S.No.4322/2014 religious reasons, plaintiffs priest advised to change the name of the plaintiff No.1 commencing from the word 'C'. Therefore, plaintiffs want to change the name of plaintiff No.1 as Chandrakanth S. The plaintiffs approached the defendants to enter the name of plaintiff No.1 as Chandrakanth S in his school records. But, the defendants refused to do so without the decree from the civil Court. The plaintiffs issued legal notice on 11-03-2014 calling upon the defendants to change the name of plaintiff No.1 in his school records. In spite of legal notice the defendants failed to make changes in the school records of the plaintiff No.1, which made the plaintiffs to file the present suit. On these grounds, plaintiffs claimed a decree for mandatory injunction in the above terms.
3. In spite of service of suit summons, defendants failed to appear before this court and placed exparte.
4. To prove and substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 examined before this Court as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P-1 to 15 documents.
5. I have heard the arguments.
6. The points that arose for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in this suit?4
2. What Order or decree?
7. My answer for the above points in the following, because of my below-discussed reasons:
POINT NO.1 : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
POINT NO.2 : AS PER FINAL ORDER.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
8. The father and minor guardian - plaintiff No.1, who was examined before this Court as PW.1, has reiterated the plaint averments in his examination in-chief and deposed about the birth of their son on 20-07-2003 and his name was entered as Rahul S in his school records. PW.1 further deposed that they named their son as Chandrakanth S and their priest have also advised them to change the name of their son. PW.1 further deposed that, in spite of repeated request and issuance of the legal notice, defendants failed to make the changes in the school records of plaintiff No.1. Therefore, they constrained to file the present suit.
9. The plaintiffs produced the Progress report of plaintiff No.1 as per Ex.P-1. The Fee receipts relating to the plaintiff No.1 were marked as per Exs.P-2 to 6. The Birth certificate of plaintiff No.1 is marked as per Ex.P-7. The Legal notice issued to the defendants calling upon them to rectify the school records of their son is marked as per Ex.P-8. The Postal receipts were marked as per Ex.P-9. The Postal 5 O.S.No.4322/2014 acknowledgment evidencing the service of notice personally upon the defendants were marked as per Exs.P-10 to P-12. Another legal notice issued to the defendant No.5 is marked as per Ex.P-13. Ex.P-14 is the postal receipt and Ex.P-15 is the postal acknowledgment evidencing the service of legal notice upon the defendant No.5.
10. As I said earlier, in spite of service of summons, defendants failed to appear before this Court and they placed exparte. Due to the non-appearance of the defendants and written statement being not filed, plaint averments remained unchallenged. PW.1 was not cross-examined. Therefore, his oral testimony and the documents produced by the plaintiffs as per Exs.P-1 to 15 remained unchallenged. Absolutely there is no rebuttal or contradictory evidence to disbelieve the undisputed pleadings and unchallenged evidence of the plaintiffs.
11. It is the case of the plaintiffs that name of plaintiff No.1 is Chandrakanth S and in his school records, it was entered as Rahul S. To prove and establish the same, plaintiffs produced the Progress report of the plaintiff No.1 as per Ex.P-1 and fee receipts were marked as per Exs.P-2 to 6. In all these records, name of the plaintiff No.1 is entered as Rahul S. 6
12. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, as per the advise of their priest, they want to change the name of plaintiff No.1 as Chandrakanth S in his school records and when the defendants have refused to change the same, without the decree from the Civil Court, they constrained to file this suit. As per the Government circulars, now any entries in the school records cannot be changed without the decree from the Civil Court. The defendants have not come forward to deny or dispute the claim of the plaintiffs. The Plaintiff No.1 is still a minor, as his birth certificate shows his date of birth as 20-07- 2003. So, there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff No.1 in changing the name in his school records.
13. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiffs are not intended to make any unlawful gain in filing the present suit seeking change of name. 7 O.S.No.4322/2014 Considering all these aspects I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree for changing the name of the plaintiff No.1 in his school record. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative.
POINT NO. 2:-
14. In view of my findings on the above point No.1, suit filed by the plaintiffs is deserves to be decreed. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel it is just and proper to direct both the parties to bear their respective costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed. The defendants are hereby directed to change the name of the plaintiff No.1 as Chandrakanth S instead of Rahul S in all his school records.
I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
******* (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, the transcript corrected by me, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 31st day of October, 2015).
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
()()()()()() 8 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 K. Shiva Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P-1 Progress report Exs.P-2 to 6 Fee receipts. Ex.P-7 Birth certificate Ex.P-8 Leal notice. Ex.P-9 Postal receipt
Ex.P-10 to 12 Postal acknowledgments.
Ex.P-13 Notice Ex.P-14 Postal receipt Ex.P-15 Postal acknowledgment.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:-
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:-
- NIL -
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.9 O.S.No.4322/2014
(Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate judgment) ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed.
The defendants are hereby directed to change the name of the plaintiff No.1 as Chandrakanth S instead of Rahul S in all his school records.
I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.