Bangalore District Court
Sinchana Suresh S vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 24 March, 2025
OS 3579/2024-Judgment
KABC010131512024
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH 12), BENGALURU
DATED: 24th DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
SMT. JYOTHSNA D., LL.B., LL.M., D.F.A.,
XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH12) BENGALURU
ORIGINAL SUIT No.3579/2024
PLAINTIFF MS. SINCHANA SURESH S.,
D/o. Suresh Babu K.,
Aged about 25 years,
Currently residing at
C/o. Yeshaswini M.V.,
No.130, 6th Cross, 8th Main,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru 560 003.
Permanent resident of Villa 65,
Phase I, Liberty Acres,
Indlabele, Bengaluru 562 107.
Represented by Smt/Sri M.K.H., Advocate
-- vs --
DEFENDANTS 1) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By its Secretary,
1
OS 3579/2024-Judgment
Ministry of Higher Education,
M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore 560 001.
2) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By its Secretary,
Ministry of Primary and Secondary
Education, M.S.Building,
Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore 560 001.
3) THE DEPTY DIRECTOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS,
Primary Education,
Government of Karnataka,
North Range, Cauvery Bhavan,
Palace Road, Bangalore 560 009.
4) THE DIRECTOR,
Department of Pre-University Education,
Office of the Director,
Sampige Road, 18th Cross Road,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore 560 012.
5) THE DIRECTOR,
The Karnataka Secondary Education
Examination Board,
6th Cross Road,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore 560 003.
2
OS 3579/2024-Judgment
6) THE PRINCIPAL,
Mahatma Vidyalaya High School,
Muthanallur,
Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru 560 099.
7) THE PRINCIPAL,
Krupanidhi Residential PU College,
12/1, Chikkabellandur,
Carmelaram Road,
Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru 560 035.
8) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES, KARNATAKA,
4th T Block, East, Pattabhirama Nagar,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru 560 041.
Represented by authorised Representative.
9) BHAGWAN BUDDHA HOMEOPATHY
MEDICAL COLLEGE,
No.103/6, 40 Feet BDA Road,
NGEF Layout, Near Vinayaka Temple,
Mallathahalli, Bengaluru 560 056.
Represented by its Principal/Secretary.
10) DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH,
(Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani,
Siddha & Homeopathy),
Dhanwanthri Road,
Near Ananda Rao Circle,
Bengaluru 560 009.
Represented by its Director.
3
OS 3579/2024-Judgment
Deft.No.1 to 3 and 5 by D.G.P.
Deft.No.4 and 7 to 9 Exparte
Deft.No.6 and 10 - In person
Date of Institution of suit 27.05.2024
Nature of suit DECLARATION SUIT
Date of commencement of evidence 01.03.202
Date of Judgment 24.03.2025
Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 09 27
(SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,)
XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH 12)
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed for declaration of the name of the plaintiff as SINCHANA SURESH S., in the place of her current name CHANDANA SURESH S., and for the relief of mandatory injunction by giving direction to the defendants to carry out the corrections in her records maintained by them and to pass suitable orders in the interest of justice and equity.
2. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that :- The plaintiff has completed her education in the schools and colleges ie., 4 OS 3579/2024-Judgment defendants 6 to 8 and studied Homeopathy Course from defendant No.9 College and is currently practicing the same and is yet to receive her Certificate from the college and university.
3. It is averred that the plaintiff is the eldest daughter of Smt. Malathi Suresh and Suresh Babu, born on 18.09.1997.
4. It is further averred that the plaintiff was called by her pet name Chandana, which was not used regularly and the same name was given in the school. The plaintiff's parents however were using the name Sinchana, since the plaintiff was unaware about the legal implications at that time. The plaintiff's parents had given the name which was not used in general public in her SSLC Marks Card and the same continued till completion of her degree. In the year 2020, the parents of the plaintiff realizing that the name has to be changed to her original name, approached the Panchayat Office who directed them to file a Paper Publication and make an affidavit by which the name can be changed. In the year 2020, the plaintiff has got her name changed by way of swearing to an Affidavit and Paper Publication from Chandana Suresh S., to Sinchana Suresh S.
5. It is further averred that the plaintiff along with the aforesaid documents, approached the Passport Authorities 5 OS 3579/2024-Judgment seeking to issue Passport, for which, the Passport authorities requested the plaintiff to produce documents like SSLC Marks, PUC Marks Card and Degree Certificates showing her name as Sinchana Suresh S., and not Chandana Suresh S. The plaintiff and her parents approached the defendants with the said documents, however, the defendants directed the plaintiff to get a decree from the Court of law. Hence, she has filed this suit.
6. It is averred that the cause of action for the suit arose in January 2024 when the plaintiff approached the Passport Authorities to get her passport and when they directed the plaintiff to get the name changed in all her records, within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff has paid proper court fee on the plaint and hence, prayed to decree the suit.
7. In response to suit summons, the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 entered appearance through DGP and defendant No.3 filed his written statement and the same has been adopted by defendants 1, 2 and 5 by filing a Memo. The defendants 4 and 7 to 9 remained absent and hence, they are placed exparte. The defendants 6 and 10 though personaly appeared, but have not contested the case of plaintiff by filing their written statement. 6
OS 3579/2024-Judgment
8. In their written statement, defendants 1 to 3 and 5 have contended that whatever information given by parents of plaintiff while admitting the plaintiff to school, was entered in the school records. The above suit is filed with misconceived facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. The plaintiff has not arrayed the necessary parties to the suit and the suit suffers from non joinder of necessary parties.
10. As per the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the name of the plaintiff or her mother. The suit is barred by limitation as the same is filed after a lapse of considerable time ( 25 years). The plaintiff has not filed documents to prove/support her contention, such as sworn affidavit and paper publication.
11. All other averments in the plaint which are not specifically traversed are denied as false and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
12. As per above pleadings and materials on record the following Issues are framed for the consideration of this Court;
Issue No 1 : Whether the plaintiff proves that she has
changed her name from 'Chandana
7
OS 3579/2024-Judgment
Suresh S.,' to 'Sinchana Suresh S., by due process as pleaded in the plaint?
Issue No 2 : Whether the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 prove that the suit is barred by limitation? Issue No 3 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for?
Issue No 4 : What order or decree?
13. To prove her case, the plaintiff herself entered into witness box and got herself examined as PW 1 by oath and sworn affidavit of examination in chief under which all the plaint averments are reiterated. To substantiate her case, she has produced certain documents which are marked as Ex.P 1 to Ex.P.13. The learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 has cross examined PW 1, but did not lead their evidence to disprove their case. The representative of defendant No.10 present and produced the copy of documents of plaintiff maintained in the records of defendant No.10 School but did not contest the case. Defendant No. 4, 7 to 9 are placed ex-parte. The defendant No.6 though appeared personally, but has not contested the case.
14. Heard, perused materials placed on record and accordingly this Court answers the above Issues as under;
Issue No 1 :In the Affirmative;
8
OS 3579/2024-Judgment Issue No 2 :In the Negative;
Issue No 3 :Partly in the Affirmative;
Issue No 4 :As per the final Order;
For the following;
REASONS
15. Issue Nos.1 and 2 :- These two issues are inter- connected to each other hence to avoid repeated discussions they are taken up together here under;
Admittedly, this suit is filed for declaration of the name of the plaintiff as SINCHANA SURESH S., in the place of her current name CHANDANA SHRESH S., and for the relief of mandatory injunction by giving direction to the defendants to carry out the corrections in her records maintained by them and to pass suitable orders in the interest of justice and equity.
16. In the documentary evidence of PW 1, Ex.P 1 to Ex.P 7 are her original marks cards of SSLC, PUC and BHMS which show her name as CHANDANA SURESH S., in Ex.P 1 her parents' names are entered as Suresh Babu K., and Malathi M.V., and her date of birth is entered as 06-05-2013. Ex.P.11 to Ex.P 13 are the registration certificate, convocation certificate of BHMS and life membership card of plaintiff issued by Department of BHMP. In 9 OS 3579/2024-Judgment these documents she prayed for correction by inserting her new name.
17. Ex.P.8 is the self-declaration of changing her name through sworn affidavit by the plaintiff which is attested by Notary Public named Chanchala Lakshmi ( Reg.No 4928) on 09- 05-2019 through which plaintiff/ PW 1 self-declared her new name as SINCHANA SURESH S., in the place of her current name CHANDANA SURESH S. Further, Exs.P.9 and Exs.P.10 are the paper publication of Ex.P 8 in Vijayavani Kannada newspaper and Bangalore Chronic newspaper respectively dated 15-05-2019 which show that plaintiff/PW 1 complied the general procedure for changing of her name by bringing to the notice of general public about changing of her identity by changing the name.
18. Though, the plaintiff has not complied Section 80 CPC prior to filing of the suit, but it is dispensed by order on IA No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Section 80(2) of CPC while filing of the suit.
19. As per materials on record, the paper publication is taken in the year 2019, but the suit is filed in the year 2024, though defendants in their written statement raised the question of period of Limitation but failed to establish it in the cross examination of PW 1 as in her cross examination PW 1 has stated 10 OS 3579/2024-Judgment as, "ಇಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೂ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಚಂದನ ಎಂದೇ ಇದ್ದು ಅದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದೂ ಸಹ ಈಗ ಯಾಕೆ ಈ ಕೇಸನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಾನು 2019 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಸ್ಪೋರ್ಟ್ ಗೆ ಹೋದಾಗ ಪಾಸ್ಪೋರ್ಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಂಚನ ಎಂದು ಬರಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಅವರು ಶಾಲಾ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಚಂದನ ಎಂದು ಇರುವುದರಿಂದ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಪತ್ರಿಕಾ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ ತರಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಆ ರೀತಿ ಪತ್ರಿಕಾ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಯೆ ಲ್ಲಾ ಮಾಡಿಯಾದ ನಂತರ ಪುನಃ ಹೋದಾಗ ಗ್ರಾ ಮ ಪಂಚಾಯತಿ ಯಿಂದ ದಾಖಲೆ ಬೇಕು ಎಂದರು. ಗ್ರಾ ಮ ಪಂಚಾಯತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದಾಗ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದಿಂದಲೇ ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ತರಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಈ ಕೇಸನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಪತ್ರಿಕಾ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಯ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ." On perusal of plaint and documents, the same is disclosed by the plaintiff and there is no material suppression by her side which shows that she came before the court with clean hands and moreover changing of one's name is one's civil right and it will not adversely effect on other rights and it only changes the identification in society, but she has complied it by public notice which is brought it to the notice of general public. Further, there is no contra elicited in her cross examination to her case and defendants have not lead their evidence too. Hence there is no impediment to declare her new name as SINCHANA SURESH S., and accordingly, this Court answers Issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 in the Negative.
20. Issue No.3 : Now, regarding the direction to defendants to carry out corrections in the documents and records of plaintiff maintained by them, when once the court has declared that the 11 OS 3579/2024-Judgment correct name of the plaintiff as SINCHANA SURESH S., instead of CHANDANA SURESH S., then it is the bounden duty of the concerned officers and school authorities to make necessary corrections in 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. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
21. 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.
It is hereby declared that the correct
name of the plaintiff is SINCHANA
12
OS 3579/2024-Judgment
SURESH S., instead of CHANDANA
SURESH S.
Plaintiff is at liberty to move an
application before the concerned
authorities for necessary corrections as per decree.
No order as to costs.
The office is hereby directed to return all the original documents which are marked as exhibits to the plaintiff, on her proper identification after keeping certified copies afresh to court file.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Senior Sheristedar on Computer, typed and then printout thereof is taken by him, after correction, signed and pronouned by me in Open Court on 24.03.2025) (SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,) XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BENGLAURU ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff.
PW 1 - Sinchana Suresh S., 13 OS 3579/2024-Judgment List of witnesses examined for the defendants. Nil.
List of documents marked for the plaintiff.
Ex.P.1 SSLC Marks Card of plaintiff Ex.P.2 I PUC Marks Card of plaintiff Ex.P.3 PUC Marks Card of plaintiff
Ex.P.4 to 7 BHMS Marks Cards of plaintiff Ex.P.8 Notarised affidavit dated 9.5.2019 of plaintiff regarding changing of name Ex.P.9 and Vijaya Vani and Bengaluru Chronical news paper publication 10 dated 15.05.2019 Ex.P.11 BHMS Degree Registration Certificate of plaintiff Ex.P.12 BHMS Degree Convocation Certificate of plaintiff Ex.P.13 BHMS Department Life Membership Card List of documents marked for the defendants. Nil.
(SMT. JYOTHSNA D.,) XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BENGLAURU 14 OS 3579/2024-Judgment (Judgment pronounced in Open Court, vide separate Judge and the Order portion reads as under) ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed partly.
It is hereby declared that the correct
name of the plaintiff is SINCHANA
SURESH S., instead of CHANDANA
SURESH S.
Plaintiff is at liberty to move an
application before the concerned
authorities for necessary corrections as per decree.
No order as to costs.
The office is hereby directed to return all the original documents which are marked as exhibits to the plaintiff, on her proper identification after keeping certified copies afresh to court file.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH12), BENGLAURU 15 OS 3579/2024-Judgment 16