Bangalore District Court
Deepa Sree C E vs The Principal, St Charles High School on 13 February, 2024
KABC010042782020
Govt. of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
Dated this the 13th day of February 2024
PRESENT: Sri. D.P. KUMARA SWAMY, B.Com., LL.M.,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.NO.1154/2020
PLAINTIFF SMT. C.E. DEEPA SREE
W/o Manjunath S.,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.19, 11th Main
2nd Cross, Kanakanagar,
Yelachenahalli, Bangalore South,
J.P. Nagar, Bangalore-560 078.
[By Sri M. Chidananda,
Advocate]
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1) THE PRINCIPAL,
OS.NO.1154/2020
2
St. Charles High School
Main road, Hutta colony
Bhadravathi,
Shimogga -57 7301.
2) KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION
EXAMINATION BOARD,
6th Cross Road, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 003.
3) THE PRINCIPAL,
DVS Polytechnic College,
Basaveshwara Circle,
Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Road,
Durgigudi, Shimogga-577201.
4) THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL
EXAMINATION,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Palace Road, Bangalore-560 001.
5) THE PRINCIPAL,
BMS Evening College of Engineering
Bull Temple Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 019.
6) THE PRINCIPAL,
AMC Engineering College,
18th KM Kalkere,
Bannerghatta main road,
Bangalore - 560 083.
7) THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
Vishweshwaraiah Technological
University, Jnana Sangama,
VTU Road, Macche,
Belgaum - 590 018.
8) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
OS.NO.1154/2020
3
9) DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
B.H. Road, Shimoga - 577 201.
[For D-2, 8 & 9 by I ADGP ]
[ D-1, D-3 to D-7 : EXPARTE]
Date of Institution of the suit : 09.02.2021
Nature of the Suit : Declaration
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 05-04-2023
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 13-02-2024
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 04 00 04
(D.P. KUMARA SWAMY)
VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit: (a) for OS.NO.1154/2020 4 mandatory injunction against the defendants to mention her name as C.E. Deepa Sree in her - (i) SSLC marks card, (ii) Diploma marks card, (iii) Diploma Certificate, (iv) B.E. Marks cards, (v) B.E. Convocation Certificate, (vi) M. Tech Marks cards, and (vii) M. Tech Convocation Certificate ; (b) to issue mandatory injunction against the defendants No.2, 4 and 6 to issue fresh Marks cards and Convocation Certificates after incorporating the correct name of the plaintiff ; and (c) to grant such other and further reliefs in the fitness of facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
2. The pleaded facts of the case of the plaintiff may be stated to the following effect :
2.1 In the certificates issued by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff is wrongly mentioned as B.E. Deepa instead of C.E. Deepa Sree. The correct and proper name of the plaintiff is C.E. Deepa Sree.
OS.NO.1154/2020 5 2.2 In the Aadhaar card, PAN card, Voters I.d. card and Driving license, the name of the plaintiff is correctly shown as C.E. Deepa Sree. 2.3 In all the Educational records of the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff is wrongly mentioned as B.E. Deepa. The said mistake is clerical error. 2.4 In order to avoid future complications, it is necessary to get the correct name of the plaintiff entered in the educational records of the plaintiff. 2.5 The plaintiff approached the defendants with a request to correct her name in the educational records of the plaintiff. The defendants suggested to the plaintiff to obtain a decree from a competent Civil Court regarding her correct name. Left with no other option, the plaintiff is compelled to file this suit for the relief claimed.
OS.NO.1154/2020 6 2.6 The Schools and Colleges where she has studied are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.
2.7 The above are the facts constituting the cause of action for the suit. Hence, this suit.
3. The defendant No.2 has filed written statement and a Memo is filed by the I ADGP to the effect that the defendants No.8 and 9 adopt the said written statement. The pleaded facts of the case of the defendants No.2, 8 and 9 may be stated to the following effect:
3.1 The name of the plaintiff is entered in her school records as per the instructions given by her parents at the time of admission of the plaintiff to first standard and the same is continued in her further education.
3.2 There is no provision for change of name in OS.NO.1154/2020 7 the school and college records of the plaintiff in view of the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, Government of Karnataka.
3.3 The school authorities have not committed any mistake or fault in entering the name of the plaintiff in her school records. Still the defendants are dragged to this litigation unnecessarily. The defendants have to bear heavy expenses and invest public time for correction of the name of the plaintiff in her school records.
3.4 The plaintiff is doing this exercise to satisfy her personal interest, whims and fancies.
3.5 The plaintiff may be directed to pay litigation expenses and expenses incurred for correction of the school records of the plaintiff, to the defendants.
3.6 The plaintiff has not specified any reason for OS.NO.1154/2020 8 change of her name.
3.7 The suit is barred by limitation.
3.8 The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
3.9 The plaintiff has not followed the procedure like swearing to an affidavit and giving wide publication in leading news papers regarding change of her name.
3.10 The Government of Karnataka is not arrayed as a party.
3.11 Without seeking for declaratory relief, suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable.
3.12 The plaintiff has not issued any notice under Section 80 CPC before filing this suit.
OS.NO.1154/2020 9 3.13 There is no cause of action for the suit. The suit may be dismissed.
4. After service of suit summons the defendants No.1, 3 to 7 have remained absent and hence, they are placed exparte.
5. Based on the pleadings and other materials on record, this Court has framed the following Issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that in her (I) SSLC marks card, (ii) Diploma marks card, (iii) Diploma certificate,
(iv) BE marks card, (v) BE convocation certificate, (vi) M.Tech marks card, and
(vii) M.Tech convocation certificate, the name of the plaintiff is wrongly entered as "B.E. Deepa" instead of mentioning the correct name of the plaintiff as "C.E. Deepa Sree" ?
2) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit is time barred ?
3) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ?
OS.NO.1154/2020 10
4) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit is bad for not claiming declaratory relief ?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed ?
6) What decree or order ?
6. The plaintiff got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38 and got closed her side. The learned I ADGP for defendant No.2 has submitted that the defendant No.2 has no independent evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned Advocate for the plaintiff and that of the learned I ADGP.
8. My findings on the Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3 : In the Negative Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative Issue No.5 : In the Negative Issue No.6 : As per the final order, for the following:
OS.NO.1154/2020 11 REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.1 : The plaintiff got herself examined as PW.1. On entering into witness box, the PW.1 has submitted, on oath, her examination- in-chief by way of her affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the pleaded facts of her case which are noted supra.
10. During the course of cross-examination, the PW.1 has stated to the following effect :
10.1 The name of the plaintiff is C.E. Deepa Sree.
10.2 At the time of admission of the plaintiff to the school, her father had given her name to the school as B.E. Deepa. When the plaintiff was doing her Ph.D., it was suggested to her that she should get her name corrected.
OS.NO.1154/2020 12 10.3 The plaintiff has completed her SSLC 25 years prior to the date of her deposition. 10.4 During the naming ceremony, the plaintiff was named as C.E. Deepa Sree. The PW.1 has denied the suggestion to the effect that the PW.1 is falsely claiming that her real name is C.E. Deepa Sree. It is true that in the plaint, the plaintiff has not stated to the effect that during the naming ceremony, the plaintiff was named as C.E. Deepa Sree.
10.5 The PW.1 has not sworn to any affidavit and she has not given any publication in any news papers regarding changing of her name from ' B.E. Deepa' to ' C.E. Deepa Sree'.
10.6 The PW.1 has studied from 1st standard to 10th standard at Bhadravathi in Shivmogga district. The PW.1 does not know if the PW.1 ought to have filed this suit in a Court in Shivmogga district.
OS.NO.1154/2020 13 10.7 It is true that the name of the plaintiff which was given by her parents to the school while admitting her to 1st standard is continued up to date.
10.8 'B' stands for Beeruru. 'C' stands for Chikkamagaluru. The native place of the plaintiff is Chikkamagaluru. But, however, while giving the name of the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff had given initials of the plaintiff as 'B.E.' instead of 'C.E.'.
11. Ex.P-1 to P-25 are the educational records of the plaintiff, wherein the name of the plaintiff is entered as 'B.E. Deepa'. Ex.P-26 is the Aadhaar card, Ex.P-27 is the PAN card, Ex.P-28 is the Voter I.D. card, and Ex.P-29 is the driving licence of the plaintiff. In Ex.P-26 to Ex.P-29, the name of the plaintiff is entered as ' C.E. Deepa Sree'. Ex.P-26 is OS.NO.1154/2020 14 issued on 22-05-2013. Ex.P-28 is issued on 02-04- 2013. Ex.P-29 is issued on 12-07-2013.
12. Ex.P-34 is a Notification issued by Visvesvaraya Technological University (for short, "VTU") dated 17-01-2010, whereunder the VTU had called for applications for admission to Ph.D., for the academic year 2019-20. Ex.P-35 is also the very same document. Ex.P-36 is the receipt issued by State Bank wherein the name of the plaintiff is entered as 'C.E. Deepa Sree'. Ex.P-37 is the Hall ticket issued by VTU, wherein the name of the plaintiff is entered as 'C.E. Deepa Sree'. Ex.P-38 is the Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act pertaining to Ex.P-34 to Ex.P-37.
13. From the perusal of the above discussion it becomes clear that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint do not include relief for declaration to the effect that the correct name of OS.NO.1154/2020 15 the plaintiff is 'C.E. Deepa Sree' but, not 'B.E. Deepa'. It is also clear that in Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-25, the name of the plaintiff is entered as 'B.E. Deepa'. In Ex.P-26 to Ex.P-29, Ex.P-36 and Ex.P-37 the name of the plaintiff is entered as 'C.E. Deepa Sree'. It is also clear that the plaintiff has not produced her birth certificate. The date of birth of the plaintiff is 13-04-1980. As per the documents produced by the plaintiff herself for the first time in the year 2013 (after lapse of about 33 years from the date of her birth) her name is shown as 'C.E. Deepa Sree'. There is nothing on record to indicate that soon after the birth of the plaintiff, during naming ceremony her parents and elders had given her the name 'C.E. Deepa Sree'.
14. When the case projected by the plaintiff is meaningfully considered, the crux of the matter involved in her case is that her name is not 'B.E. Deepa' but, her name is 'C.E. Deepa Sree'. In fact, OS.NO.1154/2020 16 this Court has noted in its order sheet dated 15-09- 2023 in this case to the effect that it is necessary to clarify itself as to whether the plaintiff was named as Deepa Sree at the time of naming ceremony after her birth or whether 'C.E.' and 'Sree' are introduced in the name of the plaintiff for the first time in the year 2013. This Court has also called upon the plaintiff to clarify as to whether or not the plaintiff ought to have followed the procedure like swearing to an affidavit and giving wide publication in two leading news papers regarding change of her name. In fact, the Court has drawn the attention of the plaintiff to a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 7977: (2017) 6 Kant LJ 670 Smt. Dorasanamma vs. Sri Raghunath V., Even thereafter, the plaintiff has not clarified the above noted aspects.
15. In 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 7977: (2017) 6 Kant LJ 670 Smt. Dorasanamma vs. Sri Raghunath V., OS.NO.1154/2020 17 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has ruled thus at para 9 :
"9. The appellant filed a suit seeking for declaration, declaring her changed name as Divya G. instead of Dorasanamma. The Change of Name Act provides that name of a student upto secondary level also can be changed by getting judgment and decree from the jurisdictional Court. Without the decree passed by the Competent Court, the name cannot be changed in the school records. When the student attains majority and if he/she has an intention to change his/her name, the intention must be disclosed through an affidavit sworn to before the Court Officer/Notary or Magistrate in a Stamp Paper of Rs. 20/- and the same has to be published in two leading news papers to make known to the general public regarding change of name. So far as student is concerned, change of name in the school records is done only on furnishing the judgment and decree by the competent Civil Court. In view of that, the appellant filed a suit seeking for declaration to declare her name as Divya G. as provided under the Change of Name Act. The reasons assigned by the trial Court to dismiss the suit is contrary to the Change of Name Act. There need not be a mistake in furnishing the name while admitting into the Educational Institution. The name can be changed according to the wish of the candidate. The Change of Name Act provides for the same. In the instant case, none of the respondents objected for change of name. The necessary documents with regard to swearing of the affidavit in a Stamp Paper before the competent authority and also two paper publications made available to the Court. Hence, the question of dismissing the suit for change of name is contrary to law. The appellant has fulfilled all the procedures prescribed under the Change of Name Act. She OS.NO.1154/2020 18 need not give any reason as to why she is changing her name. However, the appellant has to declare her intention to change her name by executing an affidavit on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/-. Hence the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. The appellant is entitled for a decree of declaration for change of her name. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set aside. The suit filed by the appellant is decreed."
16. A careful consideration of the above discussed materials would clearly indicate that the plaintiff intends to change her name from 'B.E. Deepa' to 'C.E. Deepa Sree'. In the said changed name in the initials of the plaintiff 'B' is substituted by 'C' and 'Sree' is newly added. Thus, it is clear that it is not a case of correction of name as it was originallly given to the plaintiff at the time of naming ceremony but, it is a case of change of name from 'B.E. Deepa' to 'C.E. Deepa Sree'. Hence, the plaintiff ought to have followed the procedure like swearing to an affidavit and giving wide publication in two leading news papers regarding change of her name. But, the plaintiff OS.NO.1154/2020 19 has not followed any such procedure. The plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirement of law to the satisfaction of the above cited judgment. That apart, the plaintiff has not sought for the relief of declaration regarding her name in spite of so many discrepancies exist regarding her name, some of which are highlighted supra. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that issue in her (I) SSLC marks card, (ii) Diploma marks card, (iii) Diploma certificate, (iv) BE marks card, (v) BE convocation certificate, (vi) M.Tech marks card, and
(vii) M.Tech convocation certificate, the name of the plaintiff is wrongly entered as 'B.E. Deepa' instead of mentioning the correct name of the plaintiff as 'C.E. Deepa Sree'. Hence, issue No.1 is held in the Negative.
17. ISSUE NO.2: Since the plaintiff has not changed her name in accordance with law, cause of action for filing this suit has not yet arisen. If that OS.NO.1154/2020 20 be so, question of the suit being barred by time would not arise. Hence, issue No.2 is held in the Negative.
18. ISSUE NO.3: The plaintiff has pleaded the State of Karnataka and all schools and colleges. She has also impleaded SSLC Board and the Board of Technical Examination. She has also impleaded DDPI. The plaintiff has cured the defect. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, issue No.3 is held in the Negative.
19. ISSUE NO.4: In view of the facts and circumstances enumerated supra, the plaintiff ought to have sought for declaratory relief. But, the plaintiff has not sought for such a relief. The suit is bad for not claiming declaratory relief. Hence, issue No.4 is held in the Affirmative.
20. ISSUE NO.5: In view of the findings returned on issues No.1 and 4, the plaintiff is not entitled for OS.NO.1154/2020 21 the relief claimed. Hence, issue No.5 is held in the Negative.
21. ISSUE NO.6: Hence, the following:
ORDER (1) The suit is dismissed with costs.
(2) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 13th day of February 2024) (D.P. KUMARA SWAMY) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City OS.NO.1154/2020 22 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Smt. C.E. Deepa Sree dt: 16-06-2022
(b) Defendants side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Notarized copy of SSLC marks card
Ex.P.2 to Notarized copy of I year Diploma marks
P.4 cards
Ex.P.5 & Notarized copy of II year Diploma marks
P.6 cards
Ex.P.7 & Notarized copy of III year Diploma marks
P.8 cards
Ex.P.9 Notarized copy of Diploma certificate Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of 7th semester B.E. Degree marks card Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of 8th semester B.E. Degree marks card Ex.P.12 & Notarized copies of 6th semester B.E. P.13 Degree marks card Ex.P.14 & Notarized copies of 5th semester B.E. P.15 Degree marks card Ex.P.16 & Notarized copies of 4th semester B.E. P.17 Degree marks card Ex.P.18 & Notarized copies of 3th semester B.E. P.19 Degree marks card Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of B.E. degree certificate OS.NO.1154/2020 23 Ex.P.21 to Notarized copies of 4th semester to 1st P.24 semester M.Tech degree marks cards. Ex.P.25 Notarized copy of M.Tech degree certificate Ex.P.26 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card Ex.P.27 Notarized copy of PAN card Ex.P.28 Notarized copy of Voter I.D. card Ex.P.29 Notarized copy of D.L. Ex.P.30 Notice dt: 14-07-2022 Ex.P.31 Copy of Notice dt: 14-07-2022 Ex.P.32 1 postal acknowledgment and 1 postal track consignment.
Ex.P.33 2 postal receipts Ex.P.34 OnLine printed Notification dt: 17-02-2020 Ex.P.35 OnLine printed Notification dt: 17-20-2020 Ex.P.36 OnLine receipt for paying Ph.D application fee.
Ex.P.37 Online printed hall ticket for Ph.D examination.
Ex.P.38 65-B certificate
(b) Defendants side : N I L VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY OS.NO.1154/2020 24