Bangalore District Court
Gajendra Gowda vs Union Of India on 10 October, 2022
KABC010048822020
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-14) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2022.
PRESENT:
Smt. JYOTHSNA D., LL.B., LL.M.,
XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-12),
Bengaluru.
Holding Concurrent Charge of the Court of the XXXI
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-14),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.1314/2020
PLAINTIFF : Gajendra Gowda,
S/o. Nilesh Pradhan,
Aged about 19 years,
Residing at No.316,
Sree Krupa, Between 15th
and 16th Cross, Sampige
Main Road, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru - 560 003.
(By Lokesha M.K., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.1314/2020
DEFENDANTS : 1. Union of India,
Represented by Principal
Secretary,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Director,
Regional Office Central
Board of Secondary Education,
Plot No.1630-A, J Block,
15th Main Road, Anna Nagar
West, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
3. The Head Master,
Delhi Public School North,
Survey No.35/1A,
Sathnur Village,
Bengaluru - 562 149.
4. The Head Master,
Kendriya Vidyalaya,
No.2 AFS, Jalahalli East,
Bengaluru - 560 013.
5. The Principal,
M.S. Ramaiah Composite
Pre University College,
Sy.No.20,
Chikkamaranahalli,
MSR Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 054.
(D.1 and D.2 by Sri Prakash Rao K.,
advocate and D.3 to D.5 - Ex-parte)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 17-02-2020
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Declaration and Injunction
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 05-08-2022
..
-3- O.S. No.1314/2020
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 10-10-2022
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration 2 year, 7 months, 23 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(JYOTHSNA D.)
Holding Concurrent Charge of the Court
of the XXXI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-14), Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking judgment and decree declaring that the plaintiff has changed his name from "Gajendra N. Pradhan @ A.G. Gajendra Kumar" to "Gajendra Gowda" and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff, in the name's column from "Gajendra N. Pradhan @ A.G. Gajendra Kumar" to "Gajendra Gowda"
in all existing records and henceforth to carry on the same name for all future transactions.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under -
..
-4- O.S. No.1314/2020 Plaintiff Gajendra N. Pradan @ A.G. Gajendra Kumar @ Gajendra Gowda has studied 1 st standard to 5th Standard from 2007-08 to 2011-12 in 3 rd defendant School. He has studied 6th standard to 10th Standard in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bengaluru -4th defendant School during the Academic Year 2012-12 to 2016-17. He further stated that, he studied PUC in Ramaiah College For Arts, Science and Commerce, Bengaluru in 5th defendant College. He has further stated that due to some astrological reasons his mother changed his name from "Gajendra N. Pradhan @ A.G. Gajendra Kumar" to "Gajendra Gowda" through an affidavit dated 15.07.2019 and has also taken paper publication in "The Times of India" and Kannada daily newspaper on 24.07.2019. Thereafter, he has approached the School authorities with the affidavit and paper publication for change of his name from "Gajendra N. Pradhan @ A.G. Gajendra Kumar" to "Gajendra Gowda". However, the school authorities direct him to approach the 2 nd defendant refused for change the name in their records. The defendant No.2 has informed the plaintiff that, as per the Government Circular a decree from the Civil ..
-5- O.S. No.1314/2020 Court is required to change the name in their record. As per Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, he has issued a legal notice dated 18.09.2019 to the defendants and hence he filed filed this suit.
3. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written statement stating that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The same is liable to be thrashed at limine. The suit is speculative in nature, bereft of merits, lacks bonafide and requires to be dismissed. There is no cause of action against them and even otherwise also, it is created for the purpose of unduly harassing the Government machinery. Prayer is incompatible and in- ept. Looking from any angle suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the Office of defendant No.2 is Central Board of Secondary Education is an Autonomous organization under unit of Union of India serving the educational Institution CBSE.
It is further contended that, the case centered around is for change of plaintiff's name from "Gajendra ..
-6- O.S. No.1314/2020 N. Pradhan @ A.G. Gajendra Kumar" to "Gajendra Gowda" with other consequential reliefs. The Roll Number and year of passing of the plaintiff has not been mentioned as plaintiff has not applied for desired correction of his name from "Gajendra N. Pradhan @ A.G. Gajendra Kumar" to "Gajendra Gowda" to its office. It is further contended that the Board has prepared its Examination Bye-Laws for smooth accomplishment of examination related activities. Under Rule 69 of the Bye-Laws, Provisions and procedure for correction/change in particulars of candidate in Board's records have been provided. "Both change in name of correction in name are two different concepts, the Rules for which have been defined under the Rule 69 Compliance of the requirements given under Rule 69.1(i) is mandatory for carrying out 'changes' in publication of Class X result". It is further contended that, the replica of Rule 69.1(i) is mandatory for carrying out changes in name(s) which read as follows (Change of name, mother name and father name) application regarding change of name or surname of candidate will be considered provided the changes have ..
-7- O.S. No.1314/2020 been admitted by the Court of law and notified in the Government Gazette before the Publication of the result of the candidate. According to Rule 69.1(i) Correction in candidate name, mother name and father name/surname stated that Correction in name to the extent of correction in spelling errors, typographical errors in the candidate's name/surname, father's name/ Mother's name or Guardian's name to make it consistent with what is given in the school record or list of candidate (LOC) submitted by the School may be made". Application for correction in name of the candidate/father's/mother's/guardian's name will be considered only five years of the date of declaration of result AISSE/AISSCE from 2015 examination provided the application of the candidate is forwarded by the Head of Institute with the attested documents as stated in the written statement. It is further contended that since the roll number and year of passing is not mentioned in plaint, office is not in a position to ascertain whether the plaintiff has applied for correction to this office. On this ground alone suit of ..
-8- O.S. No.1314/2020 the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings and materials on record the Issues have been framed by this Court are as follows -
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief sought for?
2. What order or decree?
5. In support of the plaintiff's case, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.12. 6. On the other hand, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the materials placed on record.
8. The findings of this Court on the above issues are as follows -
ISSUE No.1 - Partly in affirmative;
..
-9- O.S. No.1314/2020
ISSUE No.2 - As per final order,
for the following -
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO 1:- This suit is filed for declaration of the name of the plaintiff from GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G. GAJENDRA KUMAR to "GAJENDRA GOWDA" and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to carryout the changes in the name column in respect of the plaintiff's name from GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G. GAJENDRA KUMAR to "GAJENDRA GOWDA".
10. In the written statement of the defendant No.1 and 2 in its para-b, it is stated that suit is filed by mother of the plaintiff as a natural guardian, without disclosing age of plaintiff which has no legal stand. But on perusal of records it is found that at the later stage plaint was amended and the person whose name is required to be changed that is the son of earlier plaintiff is inserted as the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff his earlier name is GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G. GAJENDRA KUMAR and the same was entered in ..
- 10 - O.S. No.1314/2020 school records maintained by the defendants. He studied 1st to 5th standard in 3rd defendant school, 6th to 10th standard in 4th defendant school, and studying PUC in 5th defendant college. For some astrological reasons plaintiff's mother changed plaintiff's name from GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G. GAJENDRA KUMAR to "GAJENDRA GOWDA" through an affidavit dated 15-7-2019 and has taken paper publication in "The Times of India" and Vijaya Karnataka Dialy Kannada Newspaper dated 24-07-2019. The said name declaration affidavit is marked as Ex. P.7 and the Paper Publication in Vijaya Karnataka Dialy Kannada Newspaper dated 24-7-2019 is marked as Ex.P.8. Ex.P.12 is the Gazette Notification in which the notice of change of the name of the plaintiff from GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G. GAJENDRA KUMAR to "GAJENDRA GOWDA" is published.
11. after attaining the new name " GAJENDRA GOWDA" plaintiff's mother approached the defendants to correct the same in the school records maintained by the defendants. But the defendants refused to do the said correction of name in plaintiff's school records.
..
- 11 - O.S. No.1314/2020 Therefore plaintiff got issued legal notice to the
defendants which is marked as Ex.P.9. Ex.P.2, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 are postal receipts and postal acknowledgements which clearly establishes that the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908.
12. To prove his case, plaintiff has sworn to an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and reiterated all the plaint averments. The Plaintiff has produced and Ex.P.1 progress report of the year 2008-09 issued by 3 rd defendant in which name of the plaintiff is shown as GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN, Ex.P.3 is the report card issued by 4th defendant wherein the name of the plaintiff is shown as A G GAJENDRA KUMAR, Ex. P.4 is the achievement record issued by 4th defendant, wherein the name of the plaintiff is shown as GAJENDRA N PRADHAN and Ex.P.5 the certificate issued by 4th defendant in which name of the plaintiff is shown as A G GAJENDRA KUMAR.
13. In his cross-examination the plaintiff has stated that at the time of filing of this suit, he had attained the age of 19 years, his parents dissolved their ..
- 12 - O.S. No.1314/2020 marital relationship other than these marked records, he has Aadhaar card, driving licence, college identity card etc., which contains his new name. Even though that government authenticated documents have not been produced and marked but also the main requirement for changing of the name that are the affidavit, paper publication and publication in gazette notification about changing of the name of the plaintiff marked as Ex.P.7, P.8 and P.12 are produced. In the plaint it is stated that due to some astrological reasons plaintiff's mother changed the name of the plaintiff.
14. On the other hand, although defendant No.1 and 2 have filed their written statement and denied the case of the plaintiff and cross examined the plaintiff, but they have not come forward to adduce their evidence. Hence, there is no contra evidence. Moreover, defendant 3 to 5 placed ex-parte. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering no contra evidence by the defendants, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved that as per the advice of the astrologer, his name was changed as GAJENDRA GOWDA in the place of, ..
- 13 - O.S. No.1314/2020 GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G.GAJENDRA KUMAR according to suggestion of astrologer. Therefore, the changing of the name is proved by the plaintiff.
15. Now, the question arise before this court is whether the plaintiff can seek for declaration of his name as GAJENDRA GOWDA instead of GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G.GAJENDRA KUMAR. The nature of the relief of declaration is enforcement of his civil right. Since, plaintiff is a Hindu governed under Hindu Law and he is following the Astrologer's words, under such circumstances, whether plaintiff can seek change of his name as a civil right is to be looked into. As per Section 34 of Specific relief Act, plaintiff can ask to change his name as civil right, that the name is just used to distinguish one person to another person as stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as per the ratio laid down in AIR 2007 Delhi 46 (Rashmeet kaur Kohli vs Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSC).
16. relating to same proposition of law Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the decision reported in 1997(7) KLJ 818 ( State of Karnataka vs Varadashankar ..
- 14 - O.S. No.1314/2020 Chinnappa Jawalagi) wherein Lordship has observed as follows-
" If the suit is for enforcement of civil right accrued to person-jurisdiction of civil court in entertain such suit-not barred".
Hence, on the basis of above observations, and considering the oral and documentary evidence and no contra evidence by the defendants. It is considered that there is no bar to seek change of name of the plaintiff's name as GAJENDRA GOWDA instead of GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G.GAJENDRA KUMAR.
17. Even after changing of his name, if the plaintiff's previous name is continued in his school records, definitely it will cause more inconvenience and injustice to the plaintiff. When there is no bar to declare the name of the plaintiff as per horoscope, then there is no bar to declare the name of the plaintiff as GAJENDRA GOWDA instead of GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G.GAJENDRA KUMAR. Plaintiff has complied the notice under Section 80 of the CPC and suit is maintainable for relief of declaration, this court opined that the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration as sought for.
..
- 15 - O.S. No.1314/2020
18. It is true that the plaintiff has sought to give direction to defendants through mandatory injunction to make necessary correction in all the records of the plaintiff maintained by the defendants. When once the court has declared that the name of the plaintiff is "GAJENDRA GOWDA, then it is bounden duty of the concerned office and school authorities to make necessary corrections in all records maintainable by them in the name of the plaintiff. Hence, there is no need to give directions to the school authorities/defendants to make necessary corrections by way of mandatory injunction. If the plaintiff files necessary applications for corrections, then in view of the judgment passed in the above suit, the concerned school authorities shall make necessary corrections and it will not cause any inconvenience or injustice to both the parties. Hence, this court answer Issue No.1 in partly affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO.2:- For the foregoing reasons and discussions and considering the finding on the above issues, suit of the plaintiff is deserve to be decreed ..
- 16 - O.S. No.1314/2020 partly without costs under the above circumstances. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the following -
ORDER The Suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed. It is hereby declared that the name of the plaintiff is 'GAJENDRA GOWDA' instead of 'GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G.GAJENDRA'.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Stenographer on computer, typed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 10 th day of October, 2022.) (JYOTHSNA D.) Holding Concurrent Charge of the Court of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-14), Bengaluru. ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1: Gajendra Gowda 05-08-2022
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Progress report issued by Delhi Public School.
Ex.P.2 : Postal acknowledgement. Ex.P.3 : Report card issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya. Ex.P.4 : Achievement record issued by Kendriya Vidyalay.
Ex.P.5 : C.B.S.C. certificate.
Ex.P.6 : I PUC marks card.
..
- 17 - O.S. No.1314/2020
Ex.P.7 : Affidavit of plaintiff.
Ex.P.8 : Vijaya Karnataka Kannada daily
newspaper dated 24.07.2019.
Ex.P.9 : Legal notice dated 18.09.2019
Ex.P.10 : 4 Postal acknowledgement. Ex.P.11 : 5 Postal receipts. Ex.P.12 : Name change published by authority.
3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Nil.
4. DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Nil.
(JYOTHSNA D.) Holding Concurrent Charge of the Court of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-14), Bengaluru.
..
- 18 - O.S. No.1314/2020 10.10.2022 Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate judgment kept in file. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus -
ORDER The Suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed. It is hereby declared that the name of the plaintiff plaintiff as GAJENDRA GOWDA instead of GAJENDRA N. PRADHAN @ A.G.GAJENDRA.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(JYOTHSNA D.) Holding Concurrent Charge of the Court of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-14), Bengaluru.
..