Bangalore District Court
Chandana Kumari.M vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2023
KABC010105172022 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS 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 2nd day of February, 2023
O.S.2591/2022
PLAINTIFF:- : Chandana Kumari.M,
D/o Mahaveer Chand,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.102,
Innovative Flora Apartment,
2nd Floor, A Block,
Thimmaiah Garden,
Cox Town, Frazer Town,
Bengaluru - 560 005.
(By Sri. M. Adinarayana, Advocate)
-Versus-
DEFENDANTS:- : 1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep by its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru-01.
2. The Block Education Officer,
Department of Education (BEO),
No.250, Kamaraj Road,
Shivanna Shetty Garden,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
3. The Principal (I Std to VII Std),
Florence High School,
No.22/2, Vivani Road,
Richards Town,
Bengaluru - 560 006.
4. The Principal (VIII Std to X Std),
St. Joseph's Convent Girls High
School, No.49,
Promenade Road, Cleveland Town,
Pulakeshinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 005.
2
O.S. No.2591/2022
5. The Principal (PUC),
Government Pre-University College,
Domlur, Bengaluru - 560 071.
6. The Secretary,
Karnataka Secondary Education
Examination Board,
Malleswaram, Bangalore.
7. The Director,
Department of Pre-University
Education, Malleswaram,
Bangalore.
8. The Commissioner,
Bhruhath Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike, Bangalore - 560 002.
(D.1, 2,6 - III ADGP
D.3 - By Sri. A.U.I, Adv.,
D.4 - In person,
D.5 & D.7- Ex-parte
D.8 - By Sri., M.G.V.)
Date of institution of the Suit : 11.04.2022
Declaration & Mandatory
Nature of the Suit :
Injunction
Date of commencement of recording of 27.10.2022
:
evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 02.02.2023
:
pronounced
Total Duration Year Months Days
:
00 09 21
[ ONKARAPPA.R ]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
3
O.S. No.2591/2022
-: J U D G M E N T :-
Suit has filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the
relief of declaration of her name. Further consequential relief of
mandatory injunction sought an direction to the defendants to
change the name of the plaintiff in all the records as "RINKU.M"
instead of "CHANDANA KUMARI.M" in all the records and to issue
new marks cards, certificates etc., to the plaintiff mentioning her
name as "RINKU.M".
2. Brief facts are as under:-
That, the plaintiff was born on 07.10.1989 at Seventh Day
Adventist Hospital, No.13, Mosque Road, Frazer Town,
Bangalore. The plaintiff studied up to Pre University College. The
present name of the plaintiff is "CHANDANA KUMARI.M". The
luck and fortune of the plaintiff are not good according to her
horoscope. The Astro-numerologist has suggested the plaintiff to
change her present name to "RINKU.M" which might bring her
mental peace and fortune. The plaintiff firmly believes the
traditional horoscope, suggestions of the astrologers, belief in
God, special poojas etc., Therefore, the plaintiff needs to have a
new name. The plaintiff is desirous to change her present name
to "RINKU.M". For this purpose the plaintiff had issued statutory
notice under Sec.80(2) of C.P.C to all the defendants. The
notices were duly served on the defendants. Cause of action for
the suit arose on 23.09.2021 when the plaintiff got issued legal
notice to the defendants. If the suit is decreed no harm and injury
4
O.S. No.2591/2022
will be caused to the defendants. Hence, plaintiff has no
alternative remedy. Hence, she filed the present suit for
Declaration.
3. Records reveal that, despite service of suit summons
defendant No.5 & 7 remained ex-parte as per order sheet dated
25/07/2022. Defendant No.3 and 8 appeared before the court
through their counsels. But not chosen to filed their written
statement and remained absent. Defendant No.4 appeared
before the Court in person. Later remained absent and not filed
written statement. The defendant No.1, 2 and 6 appeared through
learned III ADGP and filed their written statement, wherein they
contended that, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in
law or on facts of the case. The defendants denies having
received any notice under Sec.80(2) of C.P.C. The suit is not
maintainable for non compliance of Sec.80(2) of C.P.C. The
allegations made against the defendants authority are all false
and denied, the plaintiffs be put to strict proof of the same. As per
the circular issued by the Commissioner of the Education
Department, there is no provision to change the name of the
student in school records. The suit is barred by limitation as the
suit is filed by the plaintiff after a lapse of considerable time. The
averments made in para No.3 to 8 are all false and denied by the
defendants. There is no case of action for the suit and alleged
cause of action is imaginary. On these grounds prayed for
dismissal of the suit with costs.
5
O.S. No.2591/2022
4. On the basis of the above narrated pleadings my
predecessor in office has framed the issues as follow:
1. Whether the plaintif
proves that her correct
name is "RINKU.M" and
not as "CHANDANA
KUMARI.M" ?
2. Whether the plaintif is
entitled for the relief of
declaration and Mandatory
Injunction as sought for ?
3. Whether the plaintif is
entitled for suit reliefs as
sought for ?
4. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove her case the plaintiff examined herself
as PW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.11. No
oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the
defendants.
6. Heard and perused the material on record.
7. 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:
6
O.S. No.2591/2022
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. Issue Nos.1 to 3:- The Issues No.1 to 3 are
overlapping with the each. Hence, Issue No.1 to 3 that I taken for
my common discussion to avoid repetition of the facts.
9. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, she was born
on 07.10.1989 at Seventh Day Adventist Hospital, No.13, Mosque
Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore. The plaintiff studied upto Pre
University College. The present name of the plaintiff is
"CHANDANA KUMARI.M". The luck and fortune of the plaintiff are
not good according to her horoscope. The Astro-numerologist has
suggested the plaintiff to change her present name to "RINKU.M"
which might bring her mental peace and fortune. The plaintiff
firmly believes the traditional horoscope, suggestions of the
astrologers, belief in God, special poojas etc., Therefore, the
plaintiff needs to have a new name. The plaintiff is desirous to
change her present name to "RINKU.M". For this purpose the
plaintiff had issued statutory notice under Sec.80(2) of C.P.C to all
the defendants. The notices were duly served on the defendants.
Hence, plaintiff have no alternative remedy and approached this
court. Cause of action for the suit arose on 23.09.2021 when the
plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants. The above all
the plaint averments reiterated by the plaintiff when she examined
at before the court as P.W.1.
7
O.S. No.2591/2022
10. The plaintiff to substantiate her case she also got
marked as many as 11 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.11. Ex.P1
is the birth certificate of plaintiff. Ex.P2 is the copy of birth
certificate details issued by Seventh Day Adventist Medical
Center. Ex.P3 is the notarized copy of the SSLC marks card,
Ex.P4 is the notarized copy of the PUC marks card, Ex.P5 is the
notarized copy of Aadhaar card. Ex.P6 is the office copy of the
notice issued to the defendants. Ex.P7 is the postal receipts.
Exs.P8 & P9 are two sheets containing two postal
acknowledgements. Ex.P10 is postal acknowledgement and
Ex.P11 is the reply issued by the defendant No.7 to the legal
notice. As could be seen of all Ex.P3 to P5 documents name of
the plaintiff entered as Chandana Kumari. M and not as
RINKU.M.
11. When go through the cross examination of PW1
though it elicited through the mouth of PW1 that name of the
plaintiff in all educational records i.e. in SSLC marks card, PUC
marks card and Aadhaar card pertains to the plaintiff mentioned
as Chandana Kumari.M. But when further go through cross
examination portion of PW1, PW1 voluntarily stated as per the
advise of the Astrologer she wants to change her name from
Chandana Kumari. M to Rinku.M. Case on record though the
defendants appeared before the court and contested the case in
accordance with law, the defendants fail to elicit the factum to
contradict the case of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was not advised
by her Astrologer to change name of the plaintiff from Chandana
8
O.S. No.2591/2022
Kumari. M to Rinku.M. As such the very averments and
contention of the plaintiff is here remains as unchallenged. The
same such things inclined me to believe the case of the plaintiff.
On the contrary though defendants appeared and contested the
case by way of filing the written statement, neither of the
defendants adduced any oral and documentary evidence at
before the court to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. As such
that, I am of the view that the plaintiff got proved her case by
corroborating the oral evidence with the documentary evidence.
12. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is not a
government servant. Though the plaintiff fail to secure either
Kundali or letter issued by the Astrologer, the anxiety and
hastiness of the plaintiff to make change her name is here evident
that the plaintiff required to change of her name from Chandana
Kumari to Rinku.M. Further, the law settled by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka with respect to faith and honour upon
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.
13. So, in the circumstances of the case, the name of the
plaintiff has to be rectified by the defendants in her all records
as Rinku.M instead of Chandana Kumari.M. This view has also
been supported by the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court
9
O.S. No.2591/2022
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
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.
14. 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 name of the plaintiff Rinku.M instead of Chandana Kumari.M. Further hereby directed to all the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff as Rinku.M in the place of Chandana Kumari.M in all the 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 2nd day of February, 2023) [ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 10 O.S. No.2591/2022 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff :
PW.1 Chandana Kumari.M List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff:
Ex. P1 Birth certificate of plaintiff, Ex. P2 Copy of the birth certificate details issued by Seventh Day Adventist Medical Center, Ex. P3 Notarized copy of the SSLC marks card of plaintiff, Ex. P4 Notarized copy of the PUC marks card of plaintiff, Ex. P5 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of plaintiff, Ex. P6 Office copy of the notice issued to the defendants, Ex. P7 Postal receipt, Exs. P8 & P9 Two sheets containing two postal acknowledgements, Ex. P10 One postal acknowledgement, Ex. P11 Reply issued by the defendant No.7 to the legal notice. Ex. P11 Study certificate issued by Narayana PU College List of documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 11 O.S. No.2591/2022 Operative portion of the judgment pronounced in open court vide separate judgment:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff hereby decreed.
That hereby declared the name of the plaintiff Rinku.M instead of Chandana Kumari.M. Further hereby directed to all the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff as Rinku.M in the place of Chandana Kumari.M in all the records accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 12 O.S. No.2591/2022 13 O.S. No.2591/2022