Bangalore District Court
Miss. R.S.Varalakshmi vs The Chief Secretary on 7 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO.43).
Digitally signed
by SRINIVASA
DN: PRESENT: Sri.P.SRINIVASA,
cn=SRINIVASA B.A.L., LL.M.,
,ou=HIGH
COURT OF XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL AND
KARNATAKA,o
SRINIVASA =GOVERNME SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
NT OF
KARNATAKA,st
=Karnataka,c=
IN
Date: Dated this the 7th day of January, 2019.
2019.01.09
10:44:19 IST
O.S.No.5638/2017
Plaintiff:- Miss. R.S.Varalakshmi
D/o.B.L.Swamy,
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at No.104,
9th Main, Kalappa Block,
Srinagar Pipe Line Road,
Srinagar,
Bangalore - 560 050.
(By Adv. Rohit R. Kukreja)
v.
Defendants:- 1. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. The Deputy Director of Public
Instructions, Bangalore North,
Bangalore - 560 042.
3. The Commissioner,
Births and Deaths,
BBMP, N.R.Square,
Bangalore - 560 002.
4. The Head Master,
Nirmala Vidyalaya,
No.242, 1st Main Road,
Chamarajpet,
Judgement
2 O.S.No.5638/2017
Bangalore - 560 018.
5. The Head Mistress,
Formerly St.Anne's Girls High School
Now named as
St. Anne's English Higher Primary School,
Ward No.8, Town-1,
Behind Police Quarters,
Near BESCOM Office,
Idagunji Ganesha Temple,
Raghavendra Extension,
Channapatna Town & Taluk,
Ramanagara District,
PIN 562 160.
6. The Head Mistress,
The Chamarajpet Girls High School,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore South,
Bangalore - 560 018.
7. The Secretary,
Karnataka Secondary Education
Examination Board,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 012.
8. The Director,
Pre-University Education,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 012.
9. The Principal,
B.M.S. Pre-University
College for Women,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore - 560 004.
10. The Registrar,
Bangalore University,
Gnanabharathi,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore - 560 056.
11. Gandhi Institute of Technology &
Management Deemed University,
Judgement
3 O.S.No.5638/2017
Centre for Distance Learning,
Third Floor, Balaji Metro Plaza,
Dondaparthi Main Road,
Vishakapatnam - 560 016.
(D1, D2 & D7 by
DGP - Muktar Ahmed Khan
D3 by Adv. Shivananda Meti
D5 by Venkatraman Naik
D11 - In person
D4, D6 to D10 - Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit : 17.08.2017
Nature of the suit : Declaration
Date of commencement of : 02.11.2018
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 07.01.2019
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
01 04 20
(P.SRINIVASA)
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff has filed the above suit to declare her name as "R.S.Varsha" instead of "R.S.Varalakshmi" in her educational records and direction to the defendants to incorporate plaintiff's name as "R.S.Varsha" in all their records / documents and for costs.
Judgement 4 O.S.No.5638/2017
2. The plaintiff's case in brief as follows: -
The plaintiff was born on 17.09.1984. As per Birth Certificate, plaintiff's name is "Varalakshmi.R.S". The plaintiff has done her Post Graduation in M.A. In the educational Marks Cards plaintiff's name is entered as "Varalakshmi.R.S". As per the advice of the astrologer the plaintiff has changed her name from "R.S.Varalakshmi" to "R.S.Varsha". In this regard, the plaintiff has sworn to an affidavit before the Notary on 08.01.2016 and has issued paper publications in Hosa Digantha and Times of India newspapers. The plaintiff approached the defendants and requested them to change her name from "R.S.Varalakshmi" to "R.S.Varsha" in their records but, the defendants refused to do so. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the above suit for declaration and to issue direction to the defendants to incorporate her name as "R.S.Varsha" instead of "R.S.Varalakshmi" in their records.
3. Inspite of service of suit summons, defendant Nos.4, 6 to 10 have remained absent hence, they were placed exparte. In response to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11 have appeared before this court. The defendant Nos.3 and 5 have filed their written statements separately. The defendant Nos.3 and 5 in their written statement have denied plaintiff's case and contended that suit is liable to be dismissed for non-issuance Judgement 5 O.S.No.5638/2017 of statutory notice and prayed that suit may be dismissed with costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, below mentioned issues arise for consideration:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has changed her name from "R.S.VARALAKSHMI"
to "R.S.VARSHA" as contended in the plaint?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the reliefs claimed?
3. What order or decree?
5. To prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and marked Ex.P1 to P31. The defendants have not adduced any evidence.
6. Heard arguments.
7. My findings on the above said issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3:- As per final order.
for the following:-
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 & 2:- These issues are taken up together for consideration to avoid repetition of facts, evidence and convenience.
Judgement 6 O.S.No.5638/2017 PW-1 in her evidence has stated that she was born on 17.09.1984 and as per Birth Certificate, her name is "Varalakshmi.R.S". The plaintiff has done her Post Graduation in M.A. In the educational Marks Cards plaintiff's name is entered as "Varalakshmi.R.S". As per the advice of the astrologer the plaintiff has changed her name from "R.S.Varalakshmi" to "R.S.Varsha". In this regard, the plaintiff has sworn to an affidavit before the Notary on 08.01.2016 and has issued paper publications in Hosa Digantha and Times of India newspapers. The plaintiff approached the defendants and requested them to change her name from "R.S.Varalakshmi" to "R.S.Varsha" in their records but, the defendants refused to do so. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the above suit for declaration and to issue direction to the defendants to incorporate her name as "R.S.Varsha" instead of "R.S.Varalakshmi" in their records. PW-1 has produced her Birth Certificate at Ex.P1. From the Birth Certificate, it reveals that plaintiff was on 17.09.1984 and her name is entered as "Varalakshmi.R.S". Further, the plaintiff has produced Marks Cards at Ex.P2 to P11, P13 and P14. From the said Marks Cards, it reveals that the plaintiff done her M.A. Degree and in the Marks Cards plaintiff's name is entered as "Varalakshmi.R.S". PW-1 in her evidence has categorically stated that as per the advice of the astrologer, she has changed Judgement 7 O.S.No.5638/2017 her name as "R.S.Varsha". The defendants have not produced any contra evidence to disprove the same. Further, the plaintiff has produced affidavit dated 08.01.2016 and paper publications at Ex.P15 to P17. From the said documents, it reveals that plaintiff has changed her name from "R.S.Varalakshmi" to "R.S.Varsha" and has issued paper publications to the said effect to the general public. The plaintiff has also produced Aadhaar Card at Ex.P18. From the said document, it clearly goes to show that plaintiff has changed her name as "R.S.Varsha". The defendant No.3 has contended that the suit is liable to be issued for non-issuance of statutory notice. The plaintiff has produced copy of the statutory notice dated 22.04.2017, postal receipts and postal acknowledgements at Ex.P19 to P31. From the said documents, it goes to show that the plaintiff has issued statutory notice to the defendants authorities, calling upon them to rectify her name in their records as "R.S.Varsha" and after the expiry of statutory period has filed the above suit. Hence, above contention of defendant No.3 doesn't survive. The said notices are served on the defendants as per the acknowledgements produced at Ex.P21 to P31. Inspite of service of said notice, the defendants have not rectified plaintiff's name in their records as "R.S.Varsha".
Judgement 8 O.S.No.5638/2017
9. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its Order dated 10.12.2013 in R.F.A.No.322 of 2013 (DEC) in the case of Gunda Naika P.S. v. The State of Karnataka and others, has held as follows:-
"11. When a party approaches the Trial Court for obtaining the decree for the change of name, it is difficult, if not impossible, to produce the documents in support of the change of name. He can only produce voluminous documents to show what is his prevailing name.
12. The Trial Court's reasoning that the appellant has not followed the procedure prescribed by the State and the Central Government is also not tenable. The respondents are in no position to point out any statutory provision or rule or Government order or circular prescribing the procedure for the change of name. On the other hand, the perusal of the circular, dated 02.05.2000 shows tht the only pre-requirement for effecting the change of name in the educational records by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions is the obtaining of the decree by the applicant at the hands of the competent civil court.
13. The suit for change of name cannot be dismissed on the ground that the horoscope is not produced or that its author is not examined or that the family priest is not examined.
14. Thus, not finding any good reasons to uphold the judgment and the decree under appeal, I set aside the same. The change of name does Judgement 9 O.S.No.5638/2017 not put the respective or any third party to any prejudice. The change of name may or may not help the appellant (plaintiff). The efficacy of the astrological advice cannot be tested in the courts of law. These are the things which depend upon the belief system of the individuals and the communities to which they belong. The objective verification of the correctness of the astrological advice cannot be insisted for.
15. In the result, I pass the following prder:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgement and decree under appeal are set aside.
(iii) The appellant is permitted to change his name from Gunda Nayak P.S. to Ganesh Nayak P.S. ............"
From the above judgment, it is clear that this court has ample power to declare change of name of the plaintiff. In the present case, the plaintiff has produced sufficient material before this court to show that she has changed her name from "R.S.Varalakshmi to R.S.Varsha". The defendants have not stepped into the witness box hence, adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants. In the light of the above discussion, I answer Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
Judgement 10 O.S.No.5638/2017
10. Issue No.3:-
In view of my above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is hereby declared that plaintiff's name is "R.S.Varsha"
instead of "R.S.Varalakshmi". Further, the defendants are directed to rectify plaintiff's name as "R.S.Varsha" in place of "R.S.Varalakshmi" in all the records maintained by them.
Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgement Writer, typed by her, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, this the 7th day of January, 2019) (P.SRINIVASA) XLII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
PW.1 - Miss. R.S.Varalakshmi
(b) Defendants' side: Nil.
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of:
Judgement 11 O.S.No.5638/2017
(a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P1 : Notarized copy of Birth Certificate of Varalakshmi.R.S Ex.P2 : Notarized copy of SSLC Marks Card of Varalakshmi.R.S Ex.P3 : Notarized copy of PUC Marks Card Varalakshmi.R.S Ex.P4 to 10 : Notarized copy of B.A. Marks Cards of Varalakshmi.R.S Ex.P11 : Notarized copy of Convocation Certificate of Varalakshmi.R.S Ex.P12 : Notarized copy of Identity Card of Varalakshmi.R.S Ex.P13 : Notarized copy of I Year M.A. Marks Card of Varalakshmi.R.S Ex.P14 : Notarized copy of II Year M.A. Marks Card of Varalakshmi.R.S Ex.P15 : Affidavit Ex.P16 & 17 : Paper publications Ex.P18 : Aadhaar Card of R.S.Varsha Ex.P19 : Legal Notice Ex.P20 : 11 Postal Receipts Ex.P21 to 29 : Postal Acknowledgements Ex.P30 : Returned RPAD Cover Ex.P31 : Postal Tracking Report
(b) Defendants' side: Nil.
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU.
Judgement 12 O.S.No.5638/2017 Judgement