Bangalore District Court
Master. Rohit Kannan.M vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2016
Govt. Of Karnataka
C.R.P.67] TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
Form No.9 MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Present: Sri. B.NARAYANAPPA, M.A, LL.B.,
suits (R.P.91)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
OS NO.26019/2015
(CCH-22)
PLAINTIFFS:-
1. MASTER. ROHIT KANNAN.M., S/o.Muthukrishnan, Aged about
12 years.
2. MASTER.CHARAN.M., S/o.Muthukrishnan, Aged about 14 years.
Both are minors, Represented by natural guardian & Father
Sri.Muthukrishnan, S/o.Sri.Eathuraj, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.13,
Vinayaka Nagar, Near Syndicate Bank Layout Bus Stop, Andrahalli Main
Road, Bengaluru-560 091.
(Plaintiffs: By Advocate Sri.V.Krishnan)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS:-
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, Represented by Chief Secretary,
Ambedkar Veedhi, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. DEPARTMNET OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, Bengaluru Urban
District, Central Junior College Ground, Opp: Kaveri Bhavan, K.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560 002.
2 OS No.26019/2015
3. THE HEADMASTER/HEAD MISTRESS, Sri.Lakshmi International
Public School, Magadi Road, Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru-560 091.
4. THE HEAD MASTER/HEAD MISTRESS, St.Mira's High School,
8th Main, Sri.Venkateshwara Temple Road, Opposite Venkateshwara
Temple, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru-560 079.
(Defendants- 1 to 3: Exparte,
Defendant No.4: Party in Person)
Date of Institution of the suit 24.11.2015
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for Declaration Suit
declaration and possession, suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording of 19.2.2016
the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was 01.04.2016
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration ---- 04 07
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT: BANGALORE.
3 OS No.26019/2015
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 being minors are represented by their Natural Guardian/Father have filed this suit against the defendants seeking relief of Declaration to declare that, the name of plaintiff No.1 has to be changed from the present name i.e., Rohit Kannan.M to Aadhithya Kanna.M and the name of plaintiff No.2 has to be changed from the present name i.e., Charan.M., M.Athwin Videsh.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiffs case are that:
The father of the plaintiffs married Smt.Nalini. Out of their wedlock, plaintiffs-1 and 2 were born. Plaintiffs-1 and 2 are aged about 12 years and 14 years respectively. Plaintiff No.1 Rohit Kannan.M was studying in St.Maria's School, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru. Now, he is studying in Sri.Lakshmi Internatinal Public School. The name of Petitioner No.1 is shown as Rohit Kannan.M in all his School Records. Plaintiff No.2 Master.Charan.M is studying in 4 OS No.26019/2015 7th Standard at Sri.Lakshmi International Public School and his [plaintiff No.2] name is entered as Charan.M in his School Records. Both the plaintiffs are facing difficulties in understanding Lessons and they are unable to cope up with the studies in a bright manner and their health is also not good all the times. Keeping all these aspects in mind, the plaintiffs father had gone for numerological suggestions and it was pointed out the reason for not able to cope up with the bright studies with the plaintiffs and there is some numerological problem in the names of their sons. In anticipation of good future of his sons, it was suggested to change the names of the plaintiffs from Rohit Kannan.M to Aadhithya Kanna.M and from Charan.M to M.Athwin Videsh. Notice was caused to the defendants on 26.5.2015, which was duly served on the defendants. The plaintiffs had filed a suit in OS No.25747/2015, which was withdrawn, as there was a defect in the plaint. Hence, this suit.5 OS No.26019/2015
3. After registration of this suit, suit summons were issued to the defendants. Inspite of service of summons, defendants-1 to 3 did not turn up. Hence, defendants-1 to 3 were placed exparte.
4. In-response to the summons, defendant No.4 appeared before this court in person and she herself has filed Parawise Remarks by way of written-statement stating that, there is no argument against condition No.1 & 2. According to condition No.3, the children of Shri.Muthukrishnan namely Charan.M and Rohit Kannan.M who were studying in St.Mira's high School, Basaveshwarangar, were admitted to the school in the year 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively and their Admission Numbers are 04/2007-08 and 32/2009-10. According to the parents, their education and health conditions are not good, so they want to change their names as M.Athwin Videsh and Aadhithya Kanna.M according to the numerological opinion. The change of names cannot be done 6 OS No.26019/2015 in the school records unless a court decree is submitted by the parents to the Education Department and after permission given legally by DDPI, the names will be changed in the school records.
5. On the basis of the above Pleadings, following Issues have been framed:
1) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, the name of the plaintiff No.1 as Aadhithya Kanna.M and the name of plaintiff No.2 as M.Athwin Videsh, as contended in the plaint?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for in the plaint?
3) What order or decree?
6. Plaintiffs-1 and 2 being Minors, they are represented by their natural guardian/father and the father of the plaintiffs has got filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief.
Same was taken as PW1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P12 and closed the evidence of the Plaintiffs. On the other hand, inspite of sufficient opportunities were given 7 OS No.26019/2015 to defendant No.4, defendant No.4 has not even cross- examined PW1 nor adduced her oral evidence nor produced any documents on her behalf. Hence, the evidence of defendant No.4 was taken as closed.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Defendant No.4 was not present on the date of arguments and not canvassed arguments on her behalf. Hence, this case was posted to this day for Judgment.
8. My findings to the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the negative Issue No.2: In the negative Issue No.3: As per the final orders, for the following:
REASONS 9. ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2:- Since Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are interlinked to each other, they are taken up together for common discussion, to avoid repetition of facts. 8 OS No.26019/2015
10. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiffs-1 and 2 being the minors, they are represented by their natural guardian/father. It is the contention of the father of the plaintiffs that, plaintiffs-1 and 2 are studying in Sri.Lakshmi International Public School and in the School Records, the name of plaintiff No.1 is shown as Rohit Kannan.M and the name of plaintiff No.2 is shown as Charan.M. It is the further contention of the father of the plaintiffs that, plaintiffs-1 and 2 are facing difficulties in understanding the lessons and they are not able to cope up with the studies in a bright manner and the health of Plaintiffs is also not good all the times. Hence, the father of the plaintiffs went to have numerological suggestion, who pointed out that, reason for not able to cope up with the bright future of the plaintiffs, there is some numerological problem in the names of plaintiffs-1 and 2. Therefore, the father of the plaintiffs decided to change the name of plaintiff No.1 as Aadhithya Kanna.M from the present name 9 OS No.26019/2015 Rohit Kannan.M and also to change the name of plaintiff No.2 as M.Athwin Videsh from the present name Charan.M. as per numerological opinion. Therefore, the father of Plaintiffs has come up with the present suit seeking relief of declaration to declare the name plaintiff No.1 as Aadhithya Kanna.M from the present name Rohit Kannan.M and to declare the name of plaintiff No.2 as M.Athwin Videsh from the present name Charan.M.
11. Admittedly, the original name of plaintiff No.1 is Rohit Kannan.M and the original name of plaintiff No.2 is Charan.M and the said names are shown in the School Records of plaintiffs-1 and 2. There is no dispute in this regard regarding the names of plaintiff No.1 & 2 shown in the cause title to the plaint. But, as per the suggestions given by the Numerologist, the father of the plaintiffs want to the change the names of plaintiffs-1 and 2, as stated above, in order to cope up with the studies of the plaintiffs in bright manner and 10 OS No.26019/2015 to keep good health of the minor plaintiffs in-anticipation of their good future.
12. PW1 in his Affidavit evidence has reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of the plaint averments and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P12. The description of documents at Exs.P1 to P12 are as follows:
Ex.P1 : Copy of legal notice issued to defendants Exs.P2 to : 6 postal Acknowledgements P7 Ex.P8 : True copy of T.C Exs.P9 and : 2 Astrology Reports P10 Exs.P11 and : 2 Study Certificates P12 PW1 has not been cross-examined by defendant No.4. On perusal of the documents produced by the plaintiffs at Ex.P8-Transfer Certificate and Ex.P12-Study Certificate of plaintiff No.1, it goes to show that, the original name of plaintiff No.1 is Rohit Kannan.M, son of Muthurkishnan.E. 11 OS No.26019/2015 Ex.P11-Study Certificate of Petitioner No.2 goes to show that, the original name of Petitioner No.2 is Charan.M, son of Mr.Muthukrishnan.E. There is no dispute in this regard about the original names of plaintiffs-1 and 2 and the original names of plaintiffs-1 and 2 are recorded in their School Records. The plaintiffs got marked Exs.P9 and P10- Format Numerology. The Numerologist suggested the name of plaintiff No. 1 as Aadhithya Kanna.M and the name of plaintiff No.2 as M.Athwin Videsh. There is no basis in giving suggestions by Numerologist for changing the names of plaintiffs-1 and 2 from the original names to the names as suggested by the Numerologist and the suggestion of the numerologist/astrologer cannot be believed and accepted and there is no authenticity in giving such suggestion by the numerologist/astrologer for change of names of Plaintiffs-1 and 2 from their original names to the names to be changed, as suggested by the numerologist/astrologer and moreover, the 12 OS No.26019/2015 original names of Plaintiffs-1 and 2 cannot be changed, since the names of plaintiffs-1 and 2 are admitted names, as per the Records of the School and the documents relied by the plaintiffs at Exs.P9 and P10-Format Numerology are not authenticated documents to prove the names of the plaintiffs intended to be changed from their original names i.e., name of plaintiff No.1 Rohit Kannan.M to Aadhithya Kanna.M and the name of plaintiff No.2 Charan.M to be changed to M.Athwin Videsh. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that, the name of plaintiff No.1 as Aadhithya Kanna.M and the name of plaintiff No.2 as M.Athwin Videsh, as contended in the plaint, because the plaintiffs have failed to produce any authenticated documents to prove the name of plaintiff No.1 as Aadhithya Kanna.M and the name of plaintiff No.2 as M.Athwin Videsh from their original names i.e., 13 OS No.26019/2015 the name of plaintiff No.1 as Rohit Kannan.M and the name of plaintiff No.2 as Charan.M respectively.
13. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the relief of declaration to change the name of plaintiff No.1 as Aadhithya Kanna.M from the present name and to change the name of plaintiff No.2 as M.Athwin Videsh from the present name. I have already come to the conclusion and answered Issue No.1 holding that, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that, the name of plaintiff No.1 as Aadhithya Kanna.M and the name of plaintiff No.2 as M.Athwin Videsh. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration, as sought for in the plaint. Hence, I answer Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.
14. ISSUE NO.3:- In-view of the reasons stated on Issue Nos.1 and 2 above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed. 14 OS No.26019/2015
2) No order as to costs.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April 2016).
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
P.W.1 : Muthukrishnan 19.2.2016 LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 : Copy of legal notice issued to defendants Exs.P2 to : 6 postal Acknowledgements P7 Ex.P8 : True copy of T.C Exs.P9 and : 2 Astrology Reports P10 Exs.P11 and : 2 Study Certificates P12 15 OS No.26019/2015 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS: NIL.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT: BANGALORE.16 OS No.26019/2015
1.4.16 P:VK D1 to 3: Exp.T D4-In person Judgement pronounced in the open court (Vide separate detailed Judgement) Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
17 OS No.26019/2015