Bangalore District Court
Vinuvastal M Alias Anvish Suraj Nayaka vs Head Master Head Mistress Shanthidhama ... on 27 January, 2025
OS 5617/2024-Judgment
KABC010204342024
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH 12), BENGALURU
DATED: 27th DAY OF JANUARY 2025
PRESENT
SMT. JYOTHSNA D., LL.B., LL.M., D.F.A.,
XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH12) BENGALURU
ORIGINAL SUIT No.5617/2024
PLAINTIFF VINUVASTAL M.,
S/o. Muniraja R.,
Aged about 14 years,
Since Minor,
Rep. By his natural guardian/father
Sri Muniraja R.,
S/o. Late Ramadasappa,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No.18/47, 7th Cross,
1st A Main, Rajeevgandhinagar,
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru - 91.
And also R/at No.7/1, 7th Cross,
1st Main, Rajeevgandhinagar,
1
OS 5617/2024-Judgment
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru - 91.
Represented by Smt/Sri S.G.V., Advocate
-- vs--
DEFENDANT/S 1) HEAD MASTER/HEAD MISTRESS,
Shanthidhama Public School,
Magadi Main Road,
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru - 91.
2) THE PRINCIPAL,
Shanthidhama Public School,
Magadi Main Road,
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru - 91.
3) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
The State of Karnataka,
Department of Primary & Secondary Education,
M.S.Building,
Bengaluru - 01.
4) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Rep. By it Secretary,
Vidhanasoudha,
Bengaluru - 01.
2
OS 5617/2024-Judgment
Defendants 1 & 2 Exaparte
Defendants 3 and 4 by 2nd ADGP
Date of Institution of suit 05.08.2024
Nature of suit SUIT FOR DECLARATION
Date of commencement of evidence 11.12.2024
Date of Judgment 27.01.2025
Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 05 22
(SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,)
XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH 12)
JUDGMENT
This this suit is filed for declaration of name of plaintiff's son as Anvish Suraj Nayaka; to pass mandatory injunction directing the defendants to enter/mention the name of plaintiff's son as Anvish Suraj Nayaka in the concerned school records and concerned govenrment records and to pass to pass such other and further relief/s as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3
OS 5617/2024-Judgment
2. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is as follows:- The plaintiff married Lakshmidevi G., and out of their wedlock, one son was born on 12.11.2009 and his birth name is Vinuvastal M., presently aged about 14 years and studying/promoted to X standard at Shanthidhama Public School, the 1st defendant. Unfortunately, in the year 2010, both kidneys of plaintiff damaged/not functioning and has been under dialysis weekly thrice. Every week, plaintiff is in need of Rs.10,000/- for dialysis. The plaintiff has been put into several economical crisis and due to his health issues, he is unable to work and entirely depend upon his wife for his livelihood and for his medical expenses. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff and his wife met their astrologer, who after having studied the horoscope of the plaintiff's son, suggested to change the name of his son as Anvish Suraj Nayaka instead of Vinuvastal M., for better prospects.
3. The plaintiff being Hindu, a stanch believer in God and astrology and Indian tradition, in the interest of his health and his son's best future career, changed his son's name from Vinuvastal M., to Anvish Suraj Nayaka, sworn to an affidavit before the Notary and got published the same in Vijaya Vani 4 OS 5617/2024-Judgment Kannada Daily on 31.03.2023 and based on the affidavit and paper publication, the plaintiff approached the defendants 1 and 2 requesting to change the name of the plaintiff in their school records. However, the defendants 1 and 2 advised the plaintiff to get an order of declaration of his son's name from the Hon'ble Court. Hence, he has filed this suit.
4. The cause of action for the suit arose on 27.04.2024 when the plaintiff issued legal notice and on 05.04.2024 when the plaintiff sworn to an affidavit and got published the same in news paper, within the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff has paid proper court fee on the plaint. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
5. In response to the suit summons, the defendants 1 and 2 remained absent and hence, they are placed exparte.
6. The defendants 3 and 4 entered appearance through II ADGP and filed their written statement.
7. In their written statement, the defendants 3 and 4 have contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegations made against the defendant authority are all false and the defendants cannot act 5 OS 5617/2024-Judgment to the whims and fancies of the plaintiff. The defendants have to abide by the rules and regulations followed by the department.
8. The particulars furnished by the parents of the student which were supported by documents will be entered in school records during admission and the same will be continued and reflected in student's school and educational records. As per the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the plaintiff's son's name in his school records.
9. The suit is barred by limitation as the suit is filed by the plaintiff after a lapse of considerable time.
10. The plaintiff is changing his son's name for imaginary reasons and he has not specified any valid reasons and the plaintiff has not followed any legal procedure to change his son's name. There is no cause of action for the suit and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
11. As per the pleadings and materials on record, the following issues are framed by this Court for determination of this case:-
6
OS 5617/2024-Judgment Issue No 1 :- Whether the plaintiff proves that his birth name is "Vinuvastal M.,' and it is changed to 'Anvish Suraj Nayaka' by due process of changing of name?
Issue No 2 :- Whether the defendants 3 and 4 prove that the suit is barred by limitation?
Issue No 3 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for?
Issue No 4 :- What order or decree?
12. To prove his case, since plaintiff is minor, his father Sri.Muniraja as his natural guardian entered into witness box and got examined by oath as PW 1 and Ex.P 1 to Ex.P 16 are got marked. The learned II ADGP for defendant Nos.3 and 4 duly cross examined PW 1 but did not lead their evidence. Defendant though defendant No 1 and 2 are placed ex-parte.
13. Heard, perused materials placed on record; accordingly, this Court answers above Issues as under;
Issue No 1 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No 2 : In the Negative;
Issue No 3 : In the partly Affirmative;
7
OS 5617/2024-Judgment
Issue No 4 : As per the final Order;
For the following;
REASONS
14. Issue No.1:- Admittedly, the suit is for declaration through the natural guardian of plaintiff to declare the name of the plaintiff as ANVISH SURAJ NAYAKA and for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants to enter/mention the name of the plaintiff as ANVISH SURAJ NAYAKA in the concerned school records and concerned Government records and for such other orders as this Court deems fit as per facts and circumstances of this case.
15. To prove the case of the minor, as the plaintiff is minor, his fater Sri.Muniraja as his natural guardian entered into witness box and got examined by oath as PW 1 and Ex.P 1 to Ex.P 16 are got marked. He has filed his sworn affidavit of examination in chief under which all the plaint averments are reiterated. The learned II ADGP for defendant No 3 and 4 duly cross examined PW 1 but did not lead their evidence to disprove his case and she has failed to elicit contra to the evidence of plaintiff in the cross examination of PW1.
16. In his documentary evidence, 8 OS 5617/2024-Judgment Ex.P 1 is the birth certificate of the plaintiff registered on 16- 11-2009 under Register No.330 which shows that plaintiff has born to Muniraja R., and Lakshmidevi G., on 12-11-2009 at Kavitha Hospital. It shows that his born name is VINUVASTAL.M.
17. Ex.P.2 is the certificate of plaintiff issued by 2 nd defendant on 20-07-2022 which shows that he is studying in VIII standard in the institution of 2nd defendant for the academic year 2022-
23. It is certified that in their school records his name is entered as VINU VASTAL S/o. Muniraja R, his date of birth is 12-11-2009 and he belongs to Hindu, ST (Nayaka) caste and his mother tongue is Kannada. The plaintiff sought for the relief of correction in the school records too.
18. Ex.P.3 is the study certificate issued by 2 nd defendant which shows as on the date 12-12-2024, plaintiff is studying in X standard and same statements in Ex.P 3 is reiterated.
19. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6 are the progress reports of plaintiff issued by 2nd defendant school.
20. Ex.P 7 is the medical report of PW 1 issued by Manipal Hospital and Ex.P 8 is the opinion of Astrologer about the name 9 OS 5617/2024-Judgment of plaintiff which correspond with plaint pleadings regarding reasons for changing of the name.
21. The nature of relief of declaration is enforcement of her civil right. Since the Plaintiff is a Hindu governed under Hindu Law and he is following the Astrologer's words, under such circumstances, whether Plaintiff can seek change of his/her name as a civil right is to be looked into.
22. In this aspect, this court would like to refer the decision reported in 2010(3) KCCR 2219 (S. Mohammed Tanveer and another V/s. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore and Others).
"CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 226 & 227 - Writ petition -Correction in names in the birth certificate - Application made by the petitioner to the authorities for rectification of names - Authorities issued endorsement stating corrections cannot be made since the entry has been made at the first instance at the request of the petitioners - Held, Documentary evidence available on record clearly indicate the name of mother and father, but the same have been wrongly indicated in birth 10 OS 5617/2024-Judgment certificate - Authorities not justified in issuing the endorsement as correction cannot be made - To issue appropriate extract".
23. Relating to same proposition of law, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the decision reported in 1996(7) KLJ 818 (State of Karnataka V/s. Varadashankar Chinnappa Jawalagi). Wherein lordship has observed as follows:
"if the suit is for enforcement of Civil right accrued to person - jurisdiction of Civil court to entertain such suit - not barred.
24. Ex.P 9 is the Aadhaar Card of the plaintiff which shows his present name VINUVASTAL M., and his father's name as Muniraja R. Ex.P.10 is the Aadhaar card of PW 1 the father of plaintiff which show the name of father of PW 1 as Ramadasappa. Ex.P 11 is the Aadhaar Card of the mother of the plaintiff named Lakshmidevi G. Ex.P.12 is the Ration Card of family of PW 1 which shows the name of his family members as Lakshmidevi G is his wife, Ramadasappa as father of PW 1 and the VINUVASTAL M., as his son. The addresses in Ex.P 9 to Ex.P 11 are the same and it makes clear that the plaintiff is the son of PW 1 and Lakshmidevi G and same is entered in Ex.P 1. 11
OS 5617/2024-Judgment
25. Ex.P 13 is the "affidavit for change of the name" of plaintiff attested by father of plaintiff/PW 1 before notary public named Devaraja E., (Reg.No 20356) on 05-04-2024. As per this affidavit, the father of plaintiff has self-declared the changing of the name of the plaintiff from VINUVASTAL M., to ANVISH SURAJ NAYAKA. Ex.P 14 is the "public notices" about self-declaration of changing of the name of the plaintiff as per Ex.P.13 which is published in the Vijayavaani Kannada Daily newspaper dated 31- 03-2023.
26. In this regard this court gone through the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No 284/2014 (DEC) ( Smt. Dorasanamma vs state of Karnataka and others) in its page No 8 it is observed as;
"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, 12 OS 5617/2024-Judgment the question of dismissing the suit for change of name is contrary to law."
27. But, here the father of plaintiff has taken such newspaper publication prior to filing of this suit. Ex.P 1 shows that plaintiff is minor. Hence, this newspaper publication is treated as the PW 1 has complied due process for changing of name of his minor son.
28. Next citation he relied upon is judgment in RFA No 947/2013(DEC) ( Shreenidhi M A vs Government of Karnataka and others) in which the same opinion of above citation is observed.
29. Further, in the following judgement, it is observed as one cannot change his/her name frequently for whims and fancies which adversely effect on defendants who have to utilise the public time in frequently correcting the documents maintained by them.
30. In AIR 2007 DELHI 46 (Rashmeet Kaur Kohli (Minor) vs Central Board Of Secondary Education (CBSC)-It is observed as the grant of decree of declaration is the discretion of the Court and can be declined in certain circumstances. Take a case where a person seeks to change his/her name very frequently 13 OS 5617/2024-Judgment or wants change of name to circumvent the rules and bye-laws of the respondent and if such a person is allowed change of name, it may lead to violation of rules and bye-laws and other complications. In such and similar circumstances, a decree for declaration which is discretionary can be declined by a Court.' In this regard the paragraph 8 of such judgment is reproduced her under;
"8. "Name" is any word or words by which any animate or inanimate thing is known or designated. In Black's Law Dictionary 'Name' is defined as under:
Name, A word or phrase identifying or designating a person or thing and distinguishing that person or thing from others.
"Legal Name. A person's full name as recognized in law" A legal name is usually acquired at birth or through a Court order. There are no rules governing a legal name's length or constitution; it may be a single name (e.g., Prince) or include words not generally used in human names (e.g., Moon Unit).
A person is entitled for change of his/her name but in certain circumstances it can be declined. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent rule of the respondent for change of name is not exhaustive and it will be difficult to formulate an exhaustive rule for 14 OS 5617/2024-Judgment change of name. Though a person is entitled for change of his/her name, however, it should be permitted in certain circumstances and should be declined in other circumstances. For example can a person be allowed to change his/her name in the record of the respondent every month or to appear in the examinations of the respondent or to get the admission in the schools affiliated to the respondent contrary to the rules and bye-laws of the respondent. To meet such eventuality the respondent's rule contemplate that the change of name should be permitted by a Court of law. Consequently, it appears that under the examination bye-laws, the change can be permitted only if a candidate has obtained a declaration regarding change of name from the concerned Court. Why a declaratory decree for change of name is required? The learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that a decree for declaration is discretionary can be declined in certain circumstances. A decree of declaration can be passed under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. However, grant of decree of declaration is the discretion of the Court and can be declined in certain circumstances. Take a case where a person seeks to change his/her name very frequently or wants change of name to circumvent the rules and bye-laws of the respondent and if such a person is allowed change of name, it may lead to violation of rules and bye-laws and other complications. In such and similar circumstances, a 15 OS 5617/2024-Judgment decree for declaration which is discretionary can be declined by a Court. With this objective the rule of the respondent for change of name contemplates, a declaration from the competent Court, as the Court can decline/grant a decree for declaration in certain circumstances as it is a discretionary relief, as contemplated under the Specific Relief Act."
31. Therefore, it is clear that one can change his name as his civil right but shall not change it frequently for whims and fancies because it is done frequently then the defendants will suffer by frequently making re-entries in his record maintained by them without their fault. But, the name is used for identity of a person in public, hence, bringing of the changing of the name to public at large by newspaper publication in very necessary.
32. But, here in this case, the main processes of changing of name is taken by father of plaintiff under Ex.P 3 to Ex.P 12 which is challenged by defendant No.3 and 4. In this regard ground taken by the plaintiff is that at that time he was minor. In this regard Section 6 of Limitation Act says that one who has disability will file a suit after cease of such disability as;
"6. Legal disability.--(1) Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed 16 OS 5617/2024-Judgment period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified there for in the third column of the Schedule.
(2) Where such person is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, affected by two such disabilities, or where, before his disability has ceased, he is affected by another disability, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after both disabilities have ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified.
(3) Where the disability continues up to the death of that person, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified.
(4) Where the legal representative referred to in sub-
section (3) is, at the date of the death of the person whom he represents, affected by any such disability, the rules contained sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply.
(5) Where a person under disability dies after the disability ceases but within the period allowed to him under this section, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period 17 OS 5617/2024-Judgment after the death, as would otherwise have been available to that person had he not died.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'minor' includes a child in the womb."
33. Then, the question is what is the limitation applies in the case of minor. Then As per THE MAJORITY ACT, 1875;
"3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India. --
(1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before.
(2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day."
Generally, after attaining age of 18 and before completion of age of 21 years that means within 3 years from the date of attaining age of majority one can either accept or challenge the acts and contracts made on behalf of her/him for her benefit and legal necessity by her/his guardian when she/he was minor. If consider it here, then Ex.P 13 and 14 are taken by plaintiff's father as his natural guardian when he was minor, then there is no impediment to declare the new name of the plaintiff in the place of his present name. 18
OS 5617/2024-Judgment
34. Accordingly, as per facts and circumstances of the case and above discussions this court is of the considered opinion that the PW1 is succeeded in proving of changing of the name of the plaintiff as ANVISH SURAJ NAYAKA in the place of his present name VINUVASTAL M., and he has taken self- declaration and newspaper publication too. Hence, there is no impediment to declare his present name as ANVISH SURAJ NAYAKA. Accordingly, this court answers Issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 in the Negative.
35. Issue Nos.3:- Now, regarding the question of direction to the defendants and about question of limitation, PW 1 has produced the office copy of legal notice dated 27-04-2024 sent to the defendants and Ex.P 16 the postal documents which shows that plaintiff has complied Section 80 of CPC prior to filing of the suit. these documents and Ex.P 2, 3, 13 and 14 shows that suit is filed with in the period of limitation and within the jurisdiction of this Court.
36. Now, when once the court has declared that the name of the plaintiff as ANVISH SURAJ NAYAKA instead of VINUVASTAL M, then it is the bounden duty of the concerned officers and school authorities to make necessary corrections in 19 OS 5617/2024-Judgment all the educational records and other records of the plaintiff and hence, there is no need to give directions to the school authorities to make necessary corrections by way of mandatory injunction separately. If the plaintiff files necessary application for correction in view of the judgment passed in the above suit, the concerned school/college authorities shall make necessary corrections and it will not cause any inconvenience or injustice to the plaintiff. Further this suit is filed before the court of competent jurisdiction as per documentary evidence and filed within the period of limitation. And there is nothing elicited by defendant No 3 and 4 in the cross examination of pW 1 about bar of the suit on the basis of limitation. Hence, this court answers Issue No.3 'Partly in the Affirmative'
37. Issue No.4: For the foregoing reasons and discussions and considering the findings on the above issues, suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed partly without costs. Accordingly this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed partly.
20
OS 5617/2024-Judgment
It is hereby declared that the name
of the plaintiff as ANVISH SURAJ
NAYAKA in the place of his present
name VINUVASTAL M.
Plaintiff/PW 1 is at liberty to move an
application before the concerned
authorities for necessary corrections as per decree.
The office is hereby directed to return the original documents which are marked as exhibits to the father of plaintiff/PW1 after keeping the certified copies afresh to court file with his proper identification.
No order as to costs.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Senior Sheristedar on Computer, typed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on 27.01.2025) (SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,) XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BENGALURU ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff.
PW 1 - Muniraja B., List of witnesses examined for the defendants. Nil.
21
OS 5617/2024-Judgment List of documents marked for the plaintiff.
Ex.P.1 Birth Certificate of plaintiff Ex.P.2 Study Certificate dated 20.07.2022 issued by 2nd defendant Ex.P.3 Study Certificate dated 12.12.2024 issued by 2nd defendant
Ex.P.4 to 6 Progress Reports of plaintiff Ex.P.7 Medical Report issued by Manipal Hospital in respect of PW1 Ex.P.8 Report issued by the Astrologer Ex.P.9 Aadhaar Card of plaintiff Ex.P.10 Aadhaar Card of PW1 Ex.P.11 Aadhaar Card of wife of PW1 Ex.P.12 Ration Card Ex.P.13 Notarised Affidvait dated 30.03.2023 regarding changing of name Ex.P.14 Paper Publication dated 20.03.2023 in Vijayavani Newspaper Ex.P.15 Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 27.04.2024 Ex.P.16 4 Postal Receipts.
List of documents marked for the defendants. Nil.
(SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,) XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BENGALURU 22 OS 5617/2024-Judgment 23