Bangalore District Court
Master. Drupad. S vs The Secretary on 16 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 16th day of November 2016
:PRESENT:
Sri.Shivaji Anant Nalawade, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4181/2016
PLAINTIFF : Master. Drupad. S
S/o K.V.Srinath,
Aged about 7 years,
Residing at No.487,
1st Main, 5th Cross,
Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
Laggere, Bengaluru - 560 058.
Since Minor represented by his next
friend, father and natural guardian;
K.V.Srinath S/o Venkatadri,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No.487,
1st Main, 5th Cross,
Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
Laggere, Bengaluru - 560 058.
(By Sri.Yogesh.H., Advocate)
- Versus -
DEFENDANTS : 1. The Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Primary and Higher Education,
Education Department,
M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2 O.S.4181/2016
2. The Head Master,
Narayana e-Techno School,
No.85/4, Kempegowda Layout,
Near Outer Ring Road,
Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 096.
3. Deputy Director,
Public Education Department,
Bengaluru North District,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
4. Block Education Officer,
North Range-I,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru - 560 003.
5. The Commissioner,
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike, Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
(Defendant No.5 by Sri.K.N.S.,
Defendant No.2-Exparte, Defendant
No.1, 3, 4 by Sri.D.G.P., Advocates)
Date of Institution 10-06-2016
Nature of suit Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of 20-10-2016
evidence
Date on which judgment 16-11-2016
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
0 5 5
3 O.S.4181/2016
JUDGMENT
This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration and consequential relief of direction.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows:
Plaintiff is a minor and he is represented by his next friend i.e., his natural father one K.V.Srinath. It is the case of the plaintiff that, he born on 19-08-2008 to his parents viz., K.V.Srinath and Hemalath.P. He is the permanent resident of Bengaluru City residing along with his parents. He is studying in the third standard at defendant No.2-School which comes within the jurisdiction of defendant No.1, 3 and 4. It is the case of plaintiff that his birth is registered in the Birth Certificate issued by defendant No.5's office under a Regd. No. 1070 dated 27-08-2008. It is the case of plaintiff that his name was given and mentioned as 'Drupad.S' in all the records pertaining to his Admission Register, Birth Certificate and other records of the defendants office. It is the case of plaintiff that, his parents and family members have consulted 4 O.S.4181/2016 Numerologist, Astrologer and Soothasayers and found that his name does not suit for his birth date and Astrology and due to wrong prediction of the name his family is under trouble and facing lot of problems. It is the case of plaintiff that, due to prediction predicted by the Numerologist, Astrologer and Soothsayers, his parents and family members are intended to renounce the present name belongs to him and intended to adopt his new name as 'Samraksh'. It is the case of plaintiff that he has completed Second standard and studying in Third standard at 2nd defendant school, so he is intending to change his name as 'Samraksh' in all his educational records and other records maintained by defendant No.1 to 5. It is the case of plaintiff that his parents requested the defendants to change his name from 'Drupad.S' to 'Samraksh' but the defendants have refused to make necessary corrections. Defendants have insisted his parents to bring Decree of the court. It is the case of plaintiff that his parents have issued legal notice to the defendant calling upon them to change his name and waited till waiting period as contemplated under Sec.80 C.P.C. Defendants have not corrected his name, so he 5 O.S.4181/2016 is constrained to file the present suit for declaration and consequential relief of directions.
3. In pursuance of the summons, defendant No.1, 3 and 4 appeared through DGP. Defendant No.5 appeared through its counsel. Defendant No.2 in spite of service of Notice remained absent, hence placed exparte.
4. Defendant No.1, 3 and 4 have filed written statement and contended that suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegations against the defendant-Authority are all false. Further defendant No.1, 3 and 4 have contended that as per the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the name of the student in the school records, so suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Defendant No.5 has filed written statement and contended that suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further defendant No.5 has contended that under the Registration of Birth and Death Act, Sec.15 of the Act provides for correction and cancellation of 6 O.S.4181/2016 the entries made in the Registrar of Births and Death. As per Sec.15, only clerical or formal error made can be corrected by following certain procedures, major corrections such as change on entire name itself is not permissible. The name and other particulars are entered in the Registrar as per the information given by the parties, so the same cannot be changed. Further defendant No.5 has contended that for the name change, there is a procedure which plaintiff ought to have followed. Plaintiff has not followed the said procedure, so suit is not maintainable. Plaintiff has not given statutory notice as required by law. On this count also suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he got changed his name as "Samraksh"?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as sought for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for directions as sought for?7 O.S.4181/2016
4. What Order/Decree?
7. Plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined his minor guardian and next friend as PW.1. Plaintiff in support of his case produced 13 documents and got them marked as Ex.P1 to 13 and closed his side. Defendants have not lead any oral and documentary evidence.
8. Heard the arguments advanced by the plaintiff, defendant No.1, 3 and 4. Perused the written arguments filed by the defendant No.5.
9. Perused the oral and documentary evidence placed before me. My findings to the above issues are as follows:
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;
8 O.S.4181/2016
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1 to 3: The above issues are
connected, hence I have taken-up these issues together in order to avoid repetition.
11. It is the case of plaintiff that, one K.V.Srinath and Hemalatha.P are his parents. His name is 'Drupad.S' and same is entered in the School Register, Birth Extract and other records. His parents have approached and consulted the Numerologist, Astrologer, Soothsayers and found that his name is not suiting his time of birth and for that reason he is under trouble and facing lot of problems and as per the advise and suggestion of Numerologist, Astrologer, Soothsayers, his parents have intended to change his name from 'Drupad.S' to 'Samraksh'. It is the case of plaintiff that his parents have approached the defendants for change of his name from Drupad.S to Samraksh, defendants have refused to change his name in the School records, Birth Register Extract. Defendants have directed him to bring Court Decree. His parents have also issued statutory Notice to the defendants 9 O.S.4181/2016 and called upon them to change his name and waited till waiting period and in spite of it defendants have not changed his name, hence he is constrained to file the present suit.
12. It is the case of the defendants that suit is not maintainable under law and fact. As per the Government Circular, there is no provision to change the name of the student in the school records. Further it is the case of defendant No.5 that there is a separate procedure for change of name and plaintiff has not followed the said procedure, so suit is not maintainable. Further it is the case of defendant No.5 that as per Sec.15 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, only clerical mistakes can be corrected, the entire name which is entered as per the information given by the parties cannot be changed, so suit is not maintainable.
13. Plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined his minor guardian and next friend as PW.1 and PW.1 has reiterated the averments of the plaint in his examination-in- chief. The counsel for the defendants have cross-examined PW.1 and nothing has been made out in his cross-examination 10 O.S.4181/2016 so as to disbelieve his evidence. Plaintiff has produced his School Identity Card which is at Ex.P1 and in Ex.P1 name of the plaintiff is entered as Drupad.S. Plaintiff has produced his Adhar Card which is at Ex.P2 and in Ex.P2 also name of the plaintiff is entered as Drupad.S. Plaintiff has produced the Adhar Card of his father which is at Ex.P3. Plaintiff has produced his Birth Extract which is at Ex.P4 and in Ex.P4 also name of the plaintiff is entered as Drupad.S. Plaintiff has produced the office copy of Notice issued by his parents to the defendants dated 14-01-2016 which is at Ex.P5. Plaintiff has produced the Postal Receipts for issue of Notice to the defendants and they are at Ex.P6. Plaintiff has produced Acknowledgment Cards for receipt of Ex.P5-Notice to defendant No.2 to 5 and they are Ex.P7 to 10. Plaintiff has produced the office copy of his letter written by his parents to the Head Post Master, District Court Building, Bengaluru for non-return of Acknowledgement of defendant No.1 which is at Ex.P11. Plaintiff has produced Endorsement given by the Postal Department which is at Ex.P12 and Ex.P12 discloses that Notice sent to defendant No.1 is duly served. Plaintiff has 11 O.S.4181/2016 produced the Reply given by defendant No.5 to Ex.P5-Notice which is at Ex.P13.
14. The only contention raised by the defendant No.5 is that, there is a separate procedure for change of name and plaintiff has not followed the same, so suit is not maintainable. Further it is the case of defendant No.1, 3 and 4 that as per the Government Circular, no correction can be effected in the School records. It is the case of defendant No.5 that as per Sec.15 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, only clerical mistake can be corrected, the entire name which is entered as per the information given by the parties cannot be changed.
15. The counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon unreported judgment of our Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.322 of 2013 (DEC) dated 10-12-2013 (Case: Gunda Naika P.S. Vs. State of Karnataka and others), wherein the lordship of our own Hon'ble High Court have observed as under;
"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 12 O.S.4181/2016 name. On the other hand, the perusal of the Circular, dated 02-05-2000 shows that 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.
The suit for the 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.
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 not put the respondents 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."
16. From the above observation of the lordship of our own Hon'ble High Court, it is clear that no statutory provisions or Rule or Government Order or Circular prescribing the procedure for change of name is there. On the other hand, the Circular dated 02-05-2000 shows that the only pre- requirement for effecting the change of name in the educational records by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions is obtaining of the Decree by the applicant at the hands of competent civil court. Further the lordship have 13 O.S.4181/2016 made out clear that, the suit for change of name cannot be dismissed on the ground that horoscope is not produced or that its author is not examined or that the family priest is not examined. In the present case in hand also, plaintiff has clearly stated that his parents have approached the Numerologist, Astrologer, Soothsayers and they advised for change of name and his parents intend to change his name and his parents have requested the defendants to change the name, defendants have not changed the name. Further plaintiff has issued legal Notice to the defendants for change of name and the Notice issued to the defendant is duly served. Defendants have not changed the name, so plaintiff has filed the present suit. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for change of his name from 'Drupad.S' to 'Samraksh' as prayed. Further plaintiff is also entitled for direction as sought for. Plaintiff has proved that his name has been changed from 'Drupad.S' to 'Samraksh'. Hence, I answered issue No.1 to 3 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
14 O.S.4181/2016
17. ISSUE No.4: In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 to 3 and reasons stated therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is declared that name of the plaintiff is 'Samraksh'. Defendants are directed to change the name of the plaintiff from 'Drupad.S' to 'Samraksh' as prayed and to incorporate the change of name in their records.
Plaintiff is directed to publish the change of name in a leading daily News Paper within two weeks from the date of issuance of certified copy of Judgment and Decree in this case.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of November, 2016).
(SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.15 O.S.4181/2016
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 K.V.Srinath 20-10-2016 DOCUMENTS MARKED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 School Identity Card Ex.P2 Adhar Card Ex.P3 Adhar Card Ex.P4 Birth Certificate Ex.P5 Certified copy of Notice Ex.P6 Postal receipts Ex.P7 to 10 Postal acknowledgements Ex.P11 Certified copy of letter to Post Office Ex.P12 Certified copy of endorsement from Post Office Ex.P13 Reply Notice
WITNESSES EXAMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT:
NIL DOCUMENTS MARKED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT:
NIL (SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.