Bangalore District Court
Sri Pazahni Kumar N.S vs The Deputy Director Of Public on 15 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 THE XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH.NO.12)
PRESENT : SRI MANJUNATH NAYAK,
B.A.L.,LL.B.,
XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
DATED: 15th OCTOBER, 2015
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 6707/2011
********
PLAINTIFF: Sri Pazahni Kumar N.S., Aged 28 years,
S/o Subramanian N.K.,
R/a No.17, IInd Main, 3rd Block,
R.M.V. II Stage, M.S.R. Nagar,
Mathikere, Bangalore - 560 054.
(By Sri M.V. Anoop Kumar, Advocate)
Vs -
DEFENDANTS: 1. The Deputy Director of Public
Instruction, Bangalore North,
Bangalore District.
2. The Secretary,
Karnataka Secondary Education Board,
Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 003.
O.S.No.6707/2011
3. The Director,
Department of Technical Education,
Tantrik Shikshan Bhavan,
Palace Road, Bangalore-560 001.
4. The Head Master,
B.E.L. High School,
Jalahalli, Bangalore North,
Bangalore - 560 013.
5. The Principal,
M.S. Ramaiah Polytechnic,
Mathikere Post,
Bangalore - 560 054.
6. Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport office,
Bangalore North Division,
No.3, Corporation shopping complex,
Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022.
7. Principal Secretary to
Government of Karnataka,
Education department,
Primary and Secondary Education,
M.S. Building,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
8. Secretary to Government of Karnataka,
Education department,
Technical Education,
M.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
9. Secretary to Government of Karnataka,
Transport department,
M.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
O.S.No.6707/2011
10. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore -560 001.
(By District Government Pleader for Deft
No. 6 & 9 and other deft Placed exparte)
******
Date of institution of the suit 11-07-2011
Nature of the suit Declaration & Injunction
Date of the commencement 23-01-2014
of recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 15-10-2015
was pronounced
Total duration Year Month Days
04 03 04
******
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed claiming the decree to declare the plaintiff's name as Palani Kumar N.S. and directing the defendants to make changes in the records of the plaintiff by changing his name as Palani Kumar N.S.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint is as follows:
The plaintiff is born on 04-04-1983 to his parents by name Subramanian N.K. and Smt. Tamilarasi M. They named the plaintiff as Pazahni Kumar N.S., while pronouncing in Tamil Language and same is spelled as Palani Kumar N.S. While admitting the plaintiff to the school, in his school records, his O.S.No.6707/2011 name was entered as Pazahni Kumar N.S. and same was continued in all the school and college records of the plaintiff. Even in the driving license, his name was entered as Pazahni Kumar N.S. In the Election Identity Card and in his Ration card plaintiff's name is entered as Palani Kumar N.S. Due to the pronunciation in Tamil language, his name was entered as Pazahni Kumar N.S. in his school records. The plaintiff made a declaration through an affidavit before the Notary to change his name and requested the defendants to rectify his name in his school records. But, the defendants have directed the plaintiff to obtain a decree from the Civil Court. The plaintiff issued a legal notice calling upon the defendants to rectify his name in the school records. But, the defendants have failed to comply the legal notice, which made the plaintiff to file the present suit. On these grounds, plaintiff claimed a decree for declaration and mandatory injunction in the above terms.
3. In response to the summons issued by this Court, the defendants No.6 and 9 appeared before this Court through their counsel, whereas other defendants failed to appear before this Court and placed exparte. The defendants No.6 & 9, in their written statement, contended that the suit is not maintainable in O.S.No.6707/2011 law or on fact. The plaintiff has not sought the proper relief against the defendants. There is no cause of action to file this suit. The defendant No.6 has carried out the corrections in the driving license of the plaintiff. Therefore, suit against defendants No.6 and 9 is not maintainable. On these grounds, defendants No.6 and 9 prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs..
4. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that his correct name is "Palani Kumar N.S."?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed?
3. To what order or decree?
5. To prove the above issues and to substantiate his contentions, plaintiff examined before this Court as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 12 documents. The defendants did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence on their behalf.
6. I have heard the arguments.
7. By considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and also the arguments canvassed by them, I answer the above issues in the following, because of my below-discussed reasons:
O.S.No.6707/2011 ISSUE NO.1 : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ISSUE NO.2 : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ISSUE NO.3 : AS PER FINAL ORDER
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1:-
8. The plaintiff, who was examined before this Court as PW.1, has reiterated the plaint averments in his examination in-
chief affidavit and deposed that his name is Palani Kumar N.S., and in his school records, it was wrongly entered as Pazahni Kumar N.S., due to the pronunciation of the name in the Tamil language. PW.1 further deposed that, in his other records like Election Identity Card and Ration card his name was correctly entered as Palani Kumar N.S. PW.1 further deposed that when he requested the defendants to rectify the school records, after executing the affidavit before the Notary, they directed him to obtain decree from the civil court, which made him to file the present suit.
9. The plaintiff produced his SSLC Marks card as per Ex.P-1. Other marks card relating to the plaintiff's regarding his Diploma education were marked as per Exs.P-2 to P-9. Ex.P-10 is the diploma certificate of the plaintiff. Ex.P-11 is the Ration O.S.No.6707/2011 card of the plaintiff. Ex.P-12 is the Election Identity card of the plaintiff.
10. The defendants have not let in any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
11. It is the specific case made out by the plaintiff that his name is Palani Kuamar N.S. and in his school records, it was wrongly entered as Pazahni Kumar N.S. To show his actual name, plaintiff produced the Ration card as per Ex.P-11 and Election Identity Card as per Ex.P-12. In both these records, the name of the plaintiff is correctly entered as Palani Kumar N.S. On the other hand, in the school records, plaintiffs name is entered as Pazahni Kumar N.S., as evident from Ex.P.1 to 10. According to the plaintiff, wrong entry of his name in his school records is because of the pronunciation of his name in the Tamil language. In the school records of the plaintiff, his name was entered as Pazahni Kumar N.S., whereas his actual name is Palani Kumar N.S. It appears that spelling mistake in the plaintiff's name in his school records is because of the pronunciation of his name in a different way in the different languages. This suit is intended to rectify only the selling mistake crept in entry of his name in his school records.
O.S.No.6707/2011
12. 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), the 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 plaintiff is not intended to make any unlawful gain or there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit seeking change of his name. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as claimed in this suit. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:-
13. In view of my findings on the above issue, plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration and mandatory injunction for change of his name in his school records, as claimed in the suit. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
O.S.No.6707/2011 ISSUE NO. 3:-
19. In view of my findings on the above issues, the suit filed by the plaintiff 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 plaintiff is decreed in the following terms.
It is declared that the plaintiff's correct name name is Palani Kumar N.S. Consequently, defendants are hereby directed to enter the plaintiff's name as Palani Kumar N.S. instead of Pazahni Kumar N.S. in all his school and college records and other 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 15th day of October, 2015) (MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
()()()()()()() O.S.No.6707/2011 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 Pazahani Kumar N.S. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P-1 SSLC Marks card Ex.P-2 to 9 Statement of marks cards Ex.P-10 Certificate Ex.P-11 Ration card Ex.P-12 Election Identity Card LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:-
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:-
- NIL -
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
O.S.No.6707/2011
(Judgment pronounced in open
Court vide separate judgment)
ORDER
The suit filed by the
plaintiff is decreed in the
following terms.
It is declared that the
plaintiff's correct name name is
Palani Kumar N.S.
Consequently, defendants
are hereby directed to enter
O.S.No.6707/2011
the plaintiff's name as Palani
Kumar N.S. instead of Pazahni
Kumar N.S. in all his school and
college records and other
records.
I direct both the parties
to bear their respective costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(MANJUNATH NAYAK)
XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU
O.S.No.6707/2011