Bangalore District Court
Kum.Adaka Rashmitha vs The Chief Secretary on 13 February, 2015
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL.CITY
CIVILJUDGE,BANGALORE
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011
PRESENT
Sri Ramachandra.D.Huddar,
B.Com,LL.B.,(Spl)
XXVII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
O.S.No.2352/2010
Plaintiff:
Kum.Adaka Rashmitha, 13 yrs,
D/o Adaka Sangameshwar,
Since Minor, represented by her
Natural guardian and father
Adaka Sangameshwar, 36 yrs
S/o A.Chenchulu,
Both are residing at No.542/A,
BDA plats, 6th main, Domalur,
Bangalore-560 071.
Sri M.Srinivas
/Vs/
Defendants:
1. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
D.C. office compound,
Bangalore-560 009.
2
O.S.2352/2010
3. The Secretary, The Social & Welfare Dept.,
M.S.building, Bangalore.
4. The Deputy Director of Public
Instruction(DDPI),
K.R.Circle Bangalore.
5. The Deputy Director of Public
Instruction(DDPI), Bangalore South District,
Kalasipalya, Bangalore-560 002.
D1 to D4 DGP
D5- exparte
Date of Institution of the suit: 05.04.2010
Nature of the suit : Declaration
Date of commencement of
Recording of the evidence : 12.01.2011
Date on which the judgement
Was pronounced : 23.02.2011
Total duration: Day/s Month/s
Year/s
18 10 00
(Ramachandra D.Huddar)
XXVII Addl.City Civil Judge,
Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
3 O.S.2352/2010 Plaintiff Kum.Adaka Rashmitha D/o Adaka Sangmeshwar through her natural guardian and father have filed suit against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration to declare that, her name Adaka Kusumanjali instead of A.Rashmitha and consequentially directing the defendants to rectify her name in her school records.
2. The facts leading to the case of the plaintiff are as follows:
That plaintiff was born 25.12.1997. Now she is studying in 8th Standard at S.S.B.English High School. Indiranagar, Bangalore. In the naming ceremony she was named as Adaka Rashmitha. She is facing problems in her growth. Therefore, as per the advise of the elders and astrologer, the parents of plaintiff decided to change her name for her better future. Therefore, the parents of plaintiff requested the School authorities to rectify the name of the 4 O.S.2352/2010 plaintiff as Adaka Kusumanjali in place of Adaka Rashmitha. But, they shown their inability. Therefore, plaintiff's parents issued legal notice dated 1.2.2010 called upon the defendants to make correction in the name of plaintiff. But, the defendants though received notice, have not responded. Therefore, this suit is filed by the plaintiff.
Hence, prays to decree the suit.
3. In response to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared before the court, but defendant No.5 remained absent before the court, hence placed exparte. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed written statement contending that, the whole suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law. This court cannot grant decree, as prayed. As per the instructions given by the parents of plaintiff, her name was entered as Adaka Rashmitha in the concerned school records. In view of circular, there is no provision for 5 O.S.2352/2010 change of name of the plaintiff in her school records. Therefore, it is prayed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are framed:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has got changed her name as Kum.Adaka Kusumanjali in place of A.Rashmitha, as alleged in the plaint?
2) If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for direction to rectify her name as Adaka Kusumanjali in her school records, as prayed?
3) What decree or order?
5. To substantiate the case made out by the plaintiff, father of the plaintiff by name Adaka Sangameshwar entered the witness box as PW.1. Got marked Ex.P1 to P8 and closed plaintiff's evidence.
6. Defendants have not lead any evidence.
7. Heard arguments and perused the records.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
6
O.S.2352/2010 Issue Nos1 & 2 : In the affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order For the following REASONS.
9. Issue Nos.1 & 2:
These two issues require common discussion. Therefore, I would like to discuss them together, so as to avoid repeatations and confusion.
10. PW.1 being the father of the plaintiff reiterates the plaint averments in his evidence on oath. In support of plaintiff's case, he has produced the progress report of the plaintiff at Ex.P1. Astrology report as per Ex.P2. Office copy of the notice issued to defendants at Ex.P3. Postal receipt and postal acknowledgement are produced at Ex.P3 to P8.
11. Though this witness has been directed with severe cross-examination, but nothing worth-while material is elicited. It is stated by PW.1 in the cross-examination that, this plaintiff was admitted 7 O.S.2352/2010 with name Adaka Rashmitha in her school records. But, further evidence of plaintiff with regard to advice from the elders and astrologer have not been denied by the defendants in the cross-examination.
12. On reading the documentary evidence, they do suggest that name of plaintiff is appearing as Adaka Rashmitha in her school records as per Ex.P1. he says after advise by the elders and astrologer, changed the name of the plaintiff as Adaka Kusumanjali for her better good-luck. It is marked at Ex.P2. While marking this document no tiny objection raised by the defendants. Ex.P3 is the copy of the legal notice sent to the defendants, wherein the defendants were called upon to make necessary corrections in the name of the plaintiff. But the defendants have not responded. To show that said notice have been received by the defendants, an acknowledgements are produced at Ex.P5 to P7. Unserved cover is produced at Ex.P8. 8
O.S.2352/2010
13. Defendants in this case as stated supra, have not entered the witness box to substantiate their contentions taken in the written statement. It gives room to draw an adverse inference against them. Accordingly, it is drawn.
14. As per the contention of the written statement, there is circular issued by the Department of Public Instructions. In this Circular, so issued by the said Department in the year 2001, if any change is required in respect of date of birth, change of name, change of caste etc., decree of the Civil court is necessary.
15. Now, plaintiff has filed this suit before this court. As per the advice of the astrologer, the plaintiff wants to change her name. She is still studying in 8th standard. So therefore, in view of circular issued by the Department of Public instructions, if decree is passed , no hardship will be caused to the 9 O.S.2352/2010 defendants. The plaintiff will be benefited, if hername is changed according to the evidence of PW.1. So therefore, the plaintiff has made out a grounds so as to grant a decree, as prayed in this case. The progress report so produced by her shows her name as Adaka Rashmitha, now she wants to change her name as Adaka Kusumanjali. So, as earlier name has to be deleted and new name has to be inserted. Therefore, decree is very-much required to the defendants to make necessary rectification of the same. Plaintiff has proved issue Nos.1 and 2 with material particulars. Hence, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative.
16. Issue No.3: As a result of my foregoing discussion and the reasons stated thereon, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and deserves to be decreed. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. 10
O.S.2352/2010 It is declared that, plaintiff's name now called as ADAKA KUSUMANJALI instead of Adaka Rashmitha and consequentially defendants are hereby directed to rectify the name of the plaintiff as ADAKA KUSUMANJALI, in her School records, as prayed.
Under the circumstance, I pass no orders as to cost.
There shall be decree in the above terms. (Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcript thereof, is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of February 2011) [Ramachandra D.Huddar], XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined for the plaintiff PW.1 Adaka Sangameshwar - 12.1.11 List of the documents marked for the plaintiff Ex.P1 Progress report Ex.P2 Astrologer report Ex.P3 Legal notice Ex.P4 Postal receipts Ex.P5-7 Postal acknowledgements Ex.P8 Unserved cover List of the witnesses examined for the defendants: nil List of the documents marked for the defendants: nil 11 O.S.2352/2010 [Ramachandra D.Huddar], XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
23.02.2011.
.
Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate judgment), with the following operative portion.
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. It is declared that, plaintiff's name now called as ADAKA KUSUMANJALI instead of Adaka Rashmitha and consequentially defendants are hereby directed to rectify the name of the plaintiff as ADAKA KUSUMANJALI, in her School records, as prayed.
Under the circumstance, I pass no orders as to cost.
There shall be decree in the above terms.
XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore