Bangalore District Court
) Smt.Shakuthala vs ) The State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2021
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 12th day of August 2021
PRESENT: Sri. Rama Naik, B.Com., LL.B.,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.NO.8184/2019
PLAINTIFFS 1) SMT.SHAKUTHALA
W/o.Sri.Shafi Ur-Rahman
Aged about 52 years
R/at No.37, 9th Main Road
Prakash Nagar
Bengaluru -560 021.
2) SRI.SYED SALMAN
S/o.Sri.Shafi Ur-Rahman
Aged about 21 years
R/at No.37, 9th Main Road
Prakash Nagar
Bengaluru -560 021.
[By Pleader Sri.C.V.S.Mani]
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
By its Secretary
Department of Education
Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru.
OS.8184/2019
2
2) The Deputy Director of Public
Instructions
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.
3) The Secretary
SSLC Board
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru -560 003.
[By Pleader Smt.Shantha.B.Mullur-
I ADGP]
4) The Head Master
SVES High School
No.81, 5th Main, 4th Block, Rajajinagar
Bengaluru -560 010.
5) The Head Master/Mistress
Southern Convent High School
Prakash Nagar
Bengaluru -560 021.
6) The Principal
Coorg Valley School
Virajpet, S.Kodagu - 571 218.
[Exparte]
7) The Commissioner
Department of Pre University Education
18th Cross, Malleshwaram
Bengaluru - 03.
[By Pleader Smt.Shantha.B.Mullur-
I ADGP]
8) The Principal
Sri Hombegowda P.U College
No.1/1 (3024), MKK Road
Gayathrinagar
Bengaluru -560 021.
[Exparte]
OS.8184/2019
3
Date of Institution of the suit : 13.11.2019
Nature of the Suit : Declaration
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 25.03.2021
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 12.08.2021
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 01 08 29
(RAMA NAIK)
VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by Plaintiffs to declare the name of Plaintiff No.2 as 'Prajwal S' and to direct the Defendants to incorporate the same in his educational records.
2) In brief, Plaintiffs' case is that the name of Plaintiff No.2 is 'Prajwal Kumar H.S' and he is also OS.8184/2019 4 called as 'Syed Salman'. He completed 1 st to 9th standard in Defendants No.4 and 5 Institutions. Transfer certificate issued by Defendants No.4 and 5 mentions the name of Plaintiff No.2 as 'Prajwal Kumar H.S'.
3) It is stated that, while admitting Plaintiff No.2 to Defendant No.6 for 10th standard, due to family pressure, Plaintiffs mentioned the name of Plaintiff No.2 as 'Syed Salman' in his school records and accordingly, Defendant No.3 issued SSLC marks card of Plaintiff No.2.
4) It is stated that, after completion of SSLC, Plaintiff No.2 joined Defendant No.8 College for PU education and completed his PU education in the year 2018. Marks card and Transfer Certificate issued by Defendants No.7 and 8 mention the name of Plaintiff No.2 as 'Syed Salman'.
OS.8184/2019 5
5) It is stated that, presently, Plaintiff No.2 is studying degree in Defendant No.6 Institution.
6) It is stated that, as per astrology and as per customs and rituals of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs wanted to change the name of Plaintiff No.2 as 'Prajwal. S.
7) It is stated that as request made to Defendants to change the name of Plaintiff No.2 in his educational records was not heeded by them, Plaintiffs issued legal notice dated 05.07.2019, calling upon them to change the name of Plaintiff No.2, however, Defendants failed to comply with the demand made in the notice. Hence, pray for decree.
8) Summonses issued to Defendants were duly served. Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7 marked appearance through 1st ADGP. Defendants No.4 to 6 OS.8184/2019 6 and 8 did choose not to appear and therefore, they were placed ex-parte.
9) Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7, in their written statement state that the information furnished by the parents of the student at the time of admission would continue in the school records. There is no fault on the part of Defendants in recording the information of the student in school records.
10) It is stated that suit filed by Plaintiffs is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to file this suit. Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
11) It is stated that, as per Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision for change of name of student in school records. Hence, pray for dismissal of suit.
OS.8184/2019 7
12) Following Issues have been framed by this Court :
1) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to change her son's name as "PRAJWAL S" instead of "SYED SALMAN" ?2) Whether Defendants No.1 to 3
and 7 prove that suit is barred by limitation?
3) Whether Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7 prove that in view of Circular issued by Education Department, there is no provision to change the name of Plaintiff in school records?
4) Whether Plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit?
5) Whether Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7 prove that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper partities?
6) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
7) What Order or Decree?
13) Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have got examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.22 in OS.8184/2019 8 support of their case. Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7 have chosen not to lead their evidence.
14) Heard learned Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7. Perused the records.
15) My findings on the above Issues are :
Issue No.1 - In Affirmative;
Issue No.2 - In Negative;
Issue No.3 - In Negative;
Issue No.4 - In Negative;
Issue No.5 - In Negative;
Issue No.6 - In Affirmative;
Issue No.7 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS 16) Issue No.2 : Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7 contend that Plaintiffs have filed this suit after a lapse of considerable time, and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
OS.8184/2019 9
17) In the plaint, it is pleaded that Plaintiffs, as suggested by Astrologer and as per customs and rituals of Plaintiffs, wanted to change the name of Plaintiff No.2 as 'Prajwal S'. It is further pleaded that as Defendants failed to heed the request made by Plaintiffs to change the name of Plaintiff No.2 in his school records, they issued legal notice dated 05.07.2019, and despite service of notice, Defendants did choose not to comply with the demand made in the notice.
18) Plaintiffs have produced the legal notice dated 05.07.2019; postal receipts for having addressed the notice to Defendants; acknowledgment for receipt of the notice by Defendants; and reply dated 6.07.2019 issued by Defendant No.1. They are at Exs.P.4 to P.19.
19) Thus, it is clear that, after deciding the change of name of Plaintiff No.2, Plaintiffs have OS.8184/2019 10 issued legal notice on 05.07.2019 as per Ex.P.4 to Defendants calling upon them to change the school records of Plaintiff No.2 relating to his name.
20) PW.1, in her cross examination, has deposed that before filing this suit, she had given requisition to the school to change the name of Plaintiff No.2. It is further deposed that as Plaintiff No.2, after attaining majority, wanted to change his name, this suit has been filed.
21) It is to be noticed that, in Ex.P.21, SSLC marks card, the date of birth of Plaintiff No.2 is shown as 30.12.1999. Taking into consideration of the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P.21, it would be clear that Plaintiff No.2 has attained the age of majority on 30.12.2017. Suit has been filed on 12.11.2019. Thus, it is clear that Plaintiffs have filed this suit within two years from the date of Plaintiff No.2 attaining age of majority. Be that as it may.
OS.8184/2019 11
22) In Union of India and others Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd and another, [AIR 2004 SC 1596], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold thus :
"21. A distinction furthermore, which is required to be noticed is that whereas in terms of Article 58 the period of three years is to be counted from the date when 'the right to sue first accrues'; in terms of Article 113 thereof, the period of limitation would be counted from the date 'when the right to sue accrues'. The distinction between Article 58 and Article 113 is, thus, apparent inasmuch as the right to sue may accrue to a suitor in a given case at different points of time and, thus whereas in terms of Article 58 the period of limitation would be reckoned from the date on which the cause of action arose first, whereas, in the latter the period of limitation would be differently computed depending upon the last day when the cause of action therefor arose."
23) In Karma Doma Gyatso alias Babila Kazi Vs. Mrs.Kesang Choden & Ors., [AIR 2009 Sikkim 6], the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court was pleased to hold as follows :
"..... Thus, it is manifest that for the purpose of limitation the relevant Article that applies to the case of declaration with a consequential relief would be the residuary Article 113 and not Article 58 which applies to declaratory suits.
OS.8184/2019 12
18. It is thus obvious that Article 58 which applies to cases of declaration simpliciter would not be applicable in the present case. Instead, it is residuary Article 113 which is attracted in the case of the Plaintiff. However, the period of limitation prescribed under both the Articles being 3 years when the right to sue first accrues (under Article
58) and when the right to sue accrues (under Article 113), the question as to which of the two Articles applies would not be of much significance particularly in the light of the finding that the right to sue accrued only in the year 2005 and the suit has been filed in the year 2006, i.e. within one year of the right to sue accruing. ......."
24) Plaintiffs' suit is for declaration of name of Plaintiff No.2 and for consequential direction to Defendants to incorporate the same in the school records of Plaintiff No.2. In that circumstance, the relevant Article applicable to Plaintiffs' case is Article 113, which states that cause of action arises when right to sue accrues. As deposed in evidence, Plaintiff No.2 has decided to change his name after attaining the age of majority. He has attained the age of majority on 30.12.2017. If the date of attaining majority is taken into consideration, right to sue first accrued to OS.8184/2019 13 Plaintiffs on 30.12.2017. This is what contemplated in Article 58, which deals with declaration simplicitor. Even Article 58 is made applicable to Plaintiffs' case. Plaintiffs have filed this suit within three years from the date of Plaintiff No.2 attaining age of majority. In that view, there is no reason to contend that Plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation; accordingly, I answer the above issue in the negative.
25) Issue No.5 : Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7 contend that suit filed by Plaintiffs is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties.
26) Cause title of plaint makes it clear that all the necessary parties including the State of Karnataka have been arrayed as Defendants in this suit. There is no pleading as to who are the necessary parties to be made as Defendants other than the Defendants against whom relief is OS.8184/2019 14 claimed. There is no cross examination, as well as argument to the said effect. A bare pleading without any substantiation has no relevancy to consider; accordingly, I answer the above issue in the negative.
27) Issues No.1 3, 4 and 6 : Plaintiffs seek declaration of the name of Plaintiff No.2 as 'Prajwal S' and direction to Defendants to incorporate the same in his school records.
28) Plaintiffs' contention is that Plaintiff No.2 studied SSLC in Defendant No.6 School, where his name has been entered as 'Syed Salman'. SSLC marks card issued by Defendant No.3 mentions the name of Plaintiff No.2 as 'Syed Salman' and same has been continued in his PU marks card issued by Defendant No.7.
OS.8184/2019 15
29) It is contended that as advised by Astrologer and as per customs and rituals, they decided to change the name of Plaintiff No.2 as 'Prajwal S' and in that regard, request was made to Defendants to change the name of Plaintiff No.2 in his school records and even the demand made in legal notice was not complied with by Defendants.
30) Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have deposed as PW.1 and PW.2 reiterating the facts stated in their plaint. Documents produced by them are at Exs.P.1 to P.22.
31) Ex.P.1 is Affidavit sworn in by Plaintiff No.2 before the Notary Public on 03.02.2021, wherein it is declared that he has changed his name from 'Syed Salman' to 'Prajwal S'. Exs.P.2 and P.3 are 'The Hindu' and 'Hosa Digantha' newspapers OS.8184/2019 16 dated 05.03.2021, wherein Plaintiff No.2 has published his change of name as per Ex.P.1.
32) Exs.P.21 and P.22 are SSLC marks card and PU marks card, wherein, the name of Plaintiff No.2 has been entered as 'Syed Salman'. His parents name is mentioned as 'Shakeela Banu' and 'Shafi Ur Rahman'.
33) Cause title of plaint goes to show that Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Sri.Shafi Ur Rahman and Plaintiff No.2 is the son of Sri.Shafi Ur Rahman.
34) PW.1, who is Plaintiff No.1 has specifically deposed in her cross examination that Sri.Shafi Ur Rahman is her husband and that her husband has given information to enter her name as 'Shakeela Banu' in the school records of her son. PW.2, who OS.8184/2019 17 is Plaintiff No.2, has deposed that Plaintiff No.1 is his mother.
35) From the above documents coupled with oral testimony of PW.1 and PW.2, it is clear that the name of Plaintiff No.2 has been entered as 'Syed Salman' in his school records. Further, it is clear that Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Sri.Shafi Ur Rahman and Plaintiff No.2 is the son of Sri.Shafi Ur Rahman. It is also clear that, in the school records of Plaintiff No.2, the name of Plaintiff No.1 has been entered as 'Shakeela Banu'. In that view, there is no reason to dispute the relationship of Plaintiffs with Sri.Shafi Ur Rahman.
36) Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7 contend that, in view of the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, it is not permissible to change the name of student mentioned in school records.
OS.8184/2019 18
37) In Gunda Naika P.S. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others [RFA No.322/2013 (DEC), decided on 10.12.2013], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold 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 from the competent Civil Court". Para-12 of the Judgment (supra) reads as follows :
"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 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".
38) In Smt.Dorasanamma Vs. State of Karnataka (RFA No.284/2014 (DEC) decided on OS.8184/2019 19 02.09.2016), Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold that "...There need not be a mistake in furnishing the name while admitting into the Educational Institution and the name can be changed according to the wish of the candidate." It is worthwhile to read para-9 of the Judgment (supra) which reads thus :
"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 up to 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 OS.8184/2019 20 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".
(underlined by me)
39) Thus, it is clear that the name can be changed, however, intention to change the name is required to be disclosed through affidavit sworn in before the Notary Public and same has to be published in two newspapers to make known to the general public.
40) Further, Circular No.ED100DTB 2014 dated 26.10.2015 issued by the Government of Karnataka deals with the procedures for correction of school records, which reads as under :
"01. ಒಒದನನನ ತರಗತಯಒದ ಎಸಸ.ಎಸಸ.ಎಲಸ.ಸ. ತರಗತಯವರನಗನ ಓದದತತರದವ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಜನನ ದನದಒಕಗಳಲಲ ಕದದಲನಒಡರಸ ತಒಗಳಲಲ ಇಲಲದ ದನದಒಕಗಳದ ಉದದಹರಣನಗನ ಫನಬಬವರ 30, ಏಪಬಲಸ 31, ಜಜನಸ 31 ಇತದದದಗಳ ಬಗನಗ ತದದದಪಡ ಕನಜನರ ಸಲಲಸದವ ಅರರಗಳನದನ OS.8184/2019 21 ಸಒಬಒಧಪಟಟ ಶದಲನಯ ಮದಖನಜದನಪದಧದದಯರ ಹಒತದಲಲಯನ ಪರಶನಲಸ, ತಕಕಣವನನ ಸಒಬಒಧಪಟಟ ಬ.ಇ.ಒ ರವರಗನ ಪಬಸದತವನನ ಸಲಲಸ ಅನದಮತ ಪಡನದದ ನಒತರ ಸಒಬಒಧಪಟಟ ಶದಲದ ಮದಖದಶಕಕಕರದ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡಲದ ಕಬಮವಹಸದವವದದ.
03. ಎಸಸ.ಎಸಸ.ಎಲಸ.ಸ. ಅಒಕಪಟಟಯಲಲ ವದದದರರಯ/ಪನಷಕರ ಹನಸರನಲಲ spelling, Initial, .......ದನದಒಕ ತದದದಪಡ, ಇದದಲಲ ಸಒಬಒಧಸದ ಶದಲನಯ ಮಜಲ ದದಖಲದತ ವಹ ಪರಶನಲಸ ಕನಕನತಬ ಶಕಕಣದಧಕದರಗಳನನ ನನನರವದಗ ಪಬಸದತವನನಯನದನ ಕನದರಟಕ ಪಪಬಢ ಶಕಕಣ ಪರನಕದಕ ಮಒಡಳಗನ ಕಳದಹಸ ಕಬಮವಹಸದವವದದ.
05. ಒಒದನನನ ತರಗತಯಒದ ಎಸಸ.ಎಸಸ.ಎಲಸ.ಸ. ತರಗತಯವರನಗನ ಓದದತತರದವ ವದದದರರಗಳ ದದಖಲನಗಳಲಲ ಹನಸರನಲಲರದವ ಅಕಕರಗಳದ ತಪದಪದಲಲ, ಹನಸರನ ಜನಜತನ ತಒದನಯ ಹನಸರದ, ಕದಟದಒಬದ ಹನಸರದ, ಅಡಡ ಹನಸರದ ಮದಲದದವವಗಳನದನ ಸನನರಸಲದ, ಹನಸರನದನ ಬದಲದವಣನ ಮದಡಲದ ಜನನ ದನದಒಕಕನಕ ದದಖಲನಗಳದ ಲಭದವದದದಗಜದ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲನಗಳಲಲ ನಮಜದಸದವದಗ ಆಗರದವ ತಪವಪಗಳನದನ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡದವದಗ ಪಡತರ ಚನಟ, ಆಧದರಸ ಕದಡದರಗಳ ಆಧದರದ ಮನಲನ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಪನಷಕರಒದ ಸನಲಸಲ ಅಫಡವಟಸ ಪಡನಯಬನನಕದ. ಈ ಸನಲಸಲ ಅಫಡವಟಸನಲಲ ನನಡರದವ ಮದಹತಗಳದ ಸದಳನಳಒದದ ಕಒಡದ ಬಒದಲಲ ಅಒತಹ ಕಬಮ ಶಕದಕಹರವದಗದವವದರಒದ ಭದರತನಯ ದಒಡ ಸಒಹತನ ಪಬಕದರ ಶಕನಕಗನ ಒಳಪಡಸಬಹದದನಒದದ ಸದರ ಅಫಡವಟಸನಲಲ ನಮಜದಸರಬನನಕದ. ಇದರ ಆಧದರದ ಮನಲನ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತ ನಯಮಗಳ ಉಲಲಒಘನನಯದಗದಒತನ ಆಯದ ಕನಕನತಬ ಶಕಕಣದಧಕದರಗಳ ಹಒತದಲಲ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡಲದ ಆಯದ ವಷರದ ಜಜನಸ01 ರಒದದ ಕಬಮ ವಹಸದವವದದ ಈ ರನತ ಕಬಮವಹಸದವದಗ ಕನದರಟಕ ಶಕಕಣ ಕದಯದ 1983 ರ ನಯಮ 11(1) ರಲಲ 05 ವಷರ ತದಒಬದ ಯದವವದನನ ಮಗದವಗನ ಶದಲನಗನ ದದಖಲದ ಮದಡಕನಜಳಳಲದ ಕನಷಟ 05 ವಷರವದಗರಬನನಕದಗರದತತದನ. ಆದದದರಒದ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಜನನ ದನದಒಕದಲಲ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡದವದಗ ಈ ಅಒಶವನದನ ಗಮನದಲಲಟದಟ ಕನಜಳಳಬನನಕದ. ಒಒದದ ಪಕಕ ಇದಕಕಒತ ಕಡಮ ಜನನ ದನದಒಕವನದನ ನಮಜದಸದದಲಲ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡಲದ ಸಒಬಒಧಪಟಟ ನದದಯದಲಯದ ಡಕಬ ತರದವವದದ ಅವಶದಕ.
06. ಎಸಸ.ಎಸಸ.ಎಲಸ.ಸ. ಆದ ನಒತರದ ಅಭದರರಗಳ OS.8184/2019 22 ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತ/ಅಒಕಪಟಟಯಲಲ ಹನಸರದ, ಅಡಡ ಹನಸರದ, ಪನಷಕರ ಹನಸರದ ಹದಗಜ ಜನನ ದನದಒಕ ಇತದದದಗಳದ ತದದದಪಡಯದಗಬನನಕದಗದದಲಲ ನದದಯದಲಯದಒದ ಡಕಬ ಪಡನದದ ಬಒದ ಪಬಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ನದದಯದಲಯದ ಆದನನಶದ ಮನರನಗನ ಶದಲದದದಖಲದತ ನಯಮಗಳನನಯ ಪರಶನಲಸ ರಲದಲ- ಉಪನದನನರಶಕರದ ಪಬಸದತವನನನ ಸನನಕರಸದ 15 ದನದನಜಳಗನ ಸಜಕತ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡ ಆದನನಶ ಹನಜರಡಸದವವದದ.
ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲನಗಳಲಲ ವದದದರರಯ ಹನಸರದ/ ಪನಷಕರ ಹನಸರದ, ವದದದರರಯ/ಜನನ ದನದಒಕ ಇತದದದ ತದದದಪಡ ಸಒಬಒಧ ದದಖಲದಗದವ ಓ.ಎಸಸ. ಪಬಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ಮದಲನನ ಪಬತವದದಯದಗ ಪಬತನಧಸಬನನಕನಒದದ ಸದಕಷದಟ ಪಬಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ಸಕದರರದ ಮದಖದ ಕದಯರದಶರ/ಸಕದರರದ ಪಬಧದನ/ ಕದಯರದಶರ, ಪದಬಥಮಕ ಮತದತ ಪಪಬಢ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖನ/ಆಯದಕತರದ, ಸದವರಜನಕ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖನ, ಇವರದಗಳನದನ 1 ನನನ ಅಥವದ 2 ನನನ ಪಬತವದಧಯನದನಗ ಮದಡಲದಗರದತತದನ. ಈ ಎಲದಲ ಪಬಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ರಲದಲ ಮಟಟದ ನದದಯದಲಯಗಳಗನ ಸಕದರರದಒದ ಅಥವದ ಆಯದಕತರಒದ ನದದಯದಲಯಕನಕ ಆಕನಕನಪಣದ ಹನನಳಕನ ಸಲಲಸಲದ ಸದಧದವದಗದವವದಲಲ ಆದದರಒದ .....
ಉಪನದನನರಶಕರದ, ಸದವರಜನಕ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖನ ಇವರದಗಳದ ನದದಯದಲಯದಲಲ ಸಕದರರದ ಪರವದಗ ಆಕನಕನಪಣದ ಹನನಳಕನ ಸಲಲಸದವ ಮಜಲಕ ಏಕಪಕಕನಯ ತನಪರಗನ ಅವಕದಶವದಗದಒತನ ನನಜನಡಕನಜಳದಳವವದದ ಹದಗಜ ಪಬಕರಣದ ಇತದಥರಕನಕ ಅಗತದ ಕಬಮ ವಹಸದವವದದ. "
41) From the above Circular dated 26.10.2015, it is clear that school records of the student, who is studying 1st to 10th standard can be corrected at the level of Block Education Officer by taking self affidavit of parents and in that circumstance, it is not necessary to obtain the decree from the Civil OS.8184/2019 23 Court. After SSLC, it is mandatory to obtain decree from the Civil Court for correction of school records. In that view, there is no significance in the contention of Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7 that there is no provision to change the name of the student in school records.
42) Plaintiffs have issued two months' prior notice dated 05.07.2019 as per Ex.P.4 to Defendants to change the name of Plaintiff No.2 in his school records. Despite the receipt of notice, Defendants did not comply with the request of Plaintiffs made in the notice. In that circumstance, only option left open to Plaintiffs is to file suit for declaration. In that view, there is no reason to contend that Plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit. In view of the proved facts, there would be no impediment to grant the relief as sought for by Plaintiffs in the plaint; accordingly, I OS.8184/2019 24 answer Issues No.1 and 6 in the affirmative and Issues No.3 and 4 in the negative.
43) Issue No.7 : For foregoing discussion and findings on Issues No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER (1) Suit filed by Plaintiffs is hereby decreed.
(2) It is hereby declared that the name of Plaintiff No.2 is "Prajwal S".
(3) Defendants are hereby directed to effect necessary changes in all the educational records of Plaintiff No.2 by incorporating his name as "Prajwal S".
(4) Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed matter corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this the 12th day of August 2021) (RAMA NAIK) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City OS.8184/2019 25 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiffs' side :
P.W.1 - Smt.Shakuthala, dtd.25.03.2021 P.W.2 - Sri.Syed Salman, dtd.27.07.2021
(b) Defendants side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiffs' side :
Ex.P.1 Affidvit sworn by Plaintiff No.2 regarding change of name Ex.P.2 'The Hindu Newspaper dtd.05.03.2021 Ex.P.3 'Hosadigantha' Newspaper dtd.05.03.2021 Ex.P.4 Office copy of legal notice dtd.05.07.2019 Ex.P.5 To Postal Receipts - 8 Nos.
Ex.P.12 Ex.P.13 To Postal Acknowledgments - 6 Nos.
Ex.P.18
Ex.P.19 Reply letter dtd.16.07.2019 issued by PU
Board
Ex.P.20 Unserved RPAD cover
Ex.P.20(a) Original Notice dtd.05.07.2019 OS.8184/2019 26 Ex.P.21 Notary attested copy of SSLC marks card of Plaintiff No.2 Ex.P.22 Notary attested copy of II PU Marks Card of Plaintiff No.2
(b) Defendants side : N I L VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City