Bangalore District Court
Mr.Aprameya R.S vs The Registrar Births And Deaths on 23 March, 2021
1 O.S.No.223/2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BANGALORE CITY - CCH NO.23.
DATED THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
PRESIDING OFFICER
PRESENT : Sri.Mohan Prabhu,
M.A., L.LM.,
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
O.S.No.223/2021
PLAINTIFF/S: Mr.Aprameya R.S.,
Aged about 22 years,
S/o Sri.Satyanarayana,
R/at No. 1713,
'E' Block, II Stage,
7 th main, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
(By Sri.S, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANT/S: The Registrar Births and Deaths,
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike (BBMP)
No. 14/1, BBMP Commercial
Complex,
Behind Upparpet Police station,
Subhashnagar (majestic),
2 O.S.No.223/2021
Bangalore - 560 009.
(Exparte)
* * * * *
Date of institution of suit : 05.01.2021
Nature of suit : Declaration
Date of commencement
of recording of evidence : 08.03.2021
Date on which the judgment
was pronounced : 23.03.2021
Duration of the suit :Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 02 18
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for declaration and consequential injunction.
2. The plaint averments briefly stated as follows:
The plaintiff was born on 24.8.1998 and his parents are Sri. Satyanarayana and Smt.Rekha.R and 3 O.S.No.223/2021 he was named as Aprameya. The plaintiffs birth was also duly registered on 5.1.2008 under registration No. 03/D with the defendant as "R.S.Aprameya" by incorporating his initials. The initials shown before his name "R.S." stands for Ramanathapura Satyanarayana (father name). The plaintiff has produced the copy of birth certificate issued by the defendant. In his school records also the plaintiff name was shown as Aprameya R.S. and his parents name are also shown as Satyanarayana and Rekha.R. The plaintiff is also holding a valid passport and in the passport his name is recorded as follows: Given name as Aprameya, Surname as Ramanathapura Satyanarayana, i.e., Aprameya Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. The plaintiff has also obtained the Aadhar card and also registered his name with the Election Commission and also obtained a PAN card 4 O.S.No.223/2021 and in all the above records his name is shown as Aprameya R.S. The plaintiff has completed his B.E. course and now he is intending to study further in abroad and it has come to his knowledge that in some of the abroad universities insists for the birth certificate showing his full name, i.e., expanded name and as such the plaintiff has requested the defendant to expand his initials and to issue fresh birth certificate by submitting the application and also got issued a notice calling upon the defendant to expand the initials and to issue a fresh birth certificate. But on 21.12.2020 the defendant has issued an endorsement stating that he cannot issue the same without there being an order from the court. The plaintiff submitted that his correct and expanded name is Aprameya Ramanathapura Satyanarayana and in short it is shown in the birth 5 O.S.No.223/2021 certificate as R.S.Aprameya. From the above it is very crystal clear that his name is Aprameya only and the initials shown before his name is father name namely Satyanarayana and his place of birth namely Ramanathapura. Hence on these grounds the plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.
3. The defendants entered appearance through its counsel and resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing the written statement which is briefly stated as follows:
The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The contention of the plaintiff regarding the birth of the plaintiff, details of the plaintiff's parents registration of birth by incorporating the initials, the elaborate forms of the initials, mentioning of the name of the plaintiff as 6 O.S.No.223/2021 Aprameya R.S. in school records, expansion of the initials made in the passport, some abroad universities insisted the expansion of initial in the birth certificate are all not within the knowledge of the defendant. With regarding to the corrections in the birth certificate the state is to be made as a party. The hospital authority where the plaintiff was born is also not made as party to this suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. There is no mistake on the part of the defendant authority in issuing the birth certificate. Under Registration of Birth and Death Act, section 15 of the Act provides for correction and cancellation of the entries made in the register of Births and Deaths. As per section only clerical or formal error made can be corrected by following certain procedures, as such a major 7 O.S.No.223/2021 correction is not possible. Hence the entire name cannot be changed. The plaintiff has not given statutory notice under section 482 of KMC Act before filing of the suit. Hence the suit is not maintainable. Hence on these grounds the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the initial R.S. appearing with the name of plaintiff stands for Ramanathapura Sathyanarayana ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that in his birth certificate his name is shown as R.S.Aprameya ?
(3) Whether the defendant proves
that the suit of the plaintiff is
not maintainable ?
8 O.S.No.223/2021
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for ?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the relief of mandatory
injunction as sought for ?
(6) What order ?
5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 are marked on the side of the plaintiff. The defendant has not stepped into the witness box and not produced any documents.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant and perused the entire records.
7. My findings to the above issues are as under: 9 O.S.No.223/2021
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.6 : As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 to 3: For the sake of convenience
and to avoid repetition of facts and evidence I have taken up these issues together.
9. The plaintiff who has examined as PW1 in his affidavit filed for examination-in-chief has reiterated the plaint averments and deposed that he was born on 24.8.1998 and his parents are Satyanarayana and Rekha.R and he was named as Aprameya. He stated that his birth was also duly registered on 5.1.2008 10 O.S.No.223/2021 under Registration No. 03/D with the defendant as "R.S.Aprameya" by incorporating his initials. He has deposed that the initials shown before his name "R.S." stands for Ramanathapura Satyanarayana (his father name). He has deposed that in all his school records also his name is shown as Aprameya R.S. and his parents names are also shown as Satyanarayana and Rekha.R. PW1 has deposed that he is also holding a valid passport and in his passport his name is shown as - Given name as Aprameya, surname is Ramanathapura Satyanarayana, i.e., Aprameya Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. He has deposed that he has also obtained Aadhar card and also registered his name with the Election Commission and also obtained a PAN card and in all the above records his name is shown as Aprameya R.S. 11 O.S.No.223/2021
10. In order to substantiate these contentions taken by the plaintiff the plaintiff has produced and got marked the documents Ex.P1 his birth certificate, Ex.P2 notarised attested true copy of his SSLC marks card, Ex.P3 notarised attested true copy of his PUC marks card, Ex.P4 notarised attested true copy of his passport, Ex.P5 notarised attested true copy of his Aadhar card, Ex.P6 notarised attested true copy of election identity card, Ex.P7 notarised attested true copy of his PAN card, Ex.P8 notarised attested true copy of his father's PAN card. On perusal of the documents Ex.P4 notarised attested true copy of the passport of PW1 / plaintiff his surname is mentioned as Ramanathapura Satyanarayana and his name is mentioned as Aprameya. In all other documents Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 the name of PW1 / plaintiff which is 12 O.S.No.223/2021 mentioned as Aprameya R.S. According to the plaintiff initial 'R' indicates his father's place of birth and initial 'S' indicates his father's name Satyanarayana. In order to substantiate this contention taken by the plaintiff he has produced the documents Ex.P8 notarised attested true copy of PAN card of his father wherein his father name is mentioned as Satyanarayana and his grand father's name is mentioned as Ramanathapura N.Krishna Rao. The plaintiff has produced the document Ex.P9 requisition letter dated 25.11.2020 given to the defendant praying to expand the initial mentioned in the birth certificate of the plaintiff and to issue fresh birth certificate showing the name as Aprameya Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. Ex.P10 is the copy of notice dated 25.11.2020 issued by the plaintiff through his advocate to the defendant calling upon 13 O.S.No.223/2021 the defendant to expand the initial, i.e., surname of the plaintiff and to issue a fresh birth certificate showing the name of the plaintiff as Aprameya Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. Ex.P11 is the endorsement issued by the defendant directing the plaintiff to produce the orders from the court. Ex.P12 is the affidavit filed by the PW1/ plaintiff . During the course of cross-examination of PW1 he has deposed that he has completed his B.E. graduation and now intends to pursue his further studies in abroad. At that time the abroad authorities have demanded to give the expanded form of his initial found in the name. He has admitted the suggestion that in Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 there is no mention regarding the expanded forms of his initial. He has admitted the suggestion that as per the information given by his father the defendant 14 O.S.No.223/2021 authorities have entered his name in the birth register. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 nothing is elicited from his mouth to suggest that R.S. initial appearing with the name of the plaintiff is not stands for Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. It is not the contention of the defendant is that initial 'R' is not stands for Ramanathapura and initial 'S' is not stand for Satyanarayana. The oral evidence of PW1 which is supported by the document Ex.P4 and Ex.P8 are sufficient to hold that initial R.S. appearing with the name of plaintiff stands for Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. During the course of cross- examination of PW1 nothing is elicited from his mouth to discard his examination-in-chief version. The oral evidence of PW1 which is supported by the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 are sufficient to hold that 15 O.S.No.223/2021 the initial appearing with the name of the plaintiff stands for Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. The plaintiff has produced the document Ex.P1 his birth certificate which would go to show that in his birth certificate his name is shown as R.S.Aprameya. Thus from the oral evidence of PW1 which is supported by the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 are sufficient to hold that the initial R.S. appearing with the name of plaintiff stands for Ramanathapura Satyanarayana but in his birth certificate his name is shown as R.S.Aprameya.
11. The defendant has taken contention that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the plaintiff was not issued notice under section 482 of KMC Act. The defendant has also taken contention that since the plaintiff has not made the state and 16 O.S.No.223/2021 the hospital authorities as parties to the suit, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff has filed this suit on 4.1.2021. The plaintiff has produced the document Ex.P9 requisition letter dated 25.11.2020 to show that prior to filing of the suit the plaintiff has submitted requisition to the defendant praying to expand the initials and to issue fresh birth certificate showing his name as Aprameya Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. The plaintiff has also produced the document Ex.P10 copy of legal notice dated 25.11.2020 issued to the defendant. In this suit the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1 under section 482 of KMC Act r/w section 80 of C.P.C. for which the defendant has not filed any objection. This court was pleased to permit the plaintiff to institute this suit by dispensing the notice under section 482 of KMC Act. The defendants who have not filed any 17 O.S.No.223/2021 objection to I.A.No.1 now estopped from claiming that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The contention of the defendant is that the State and the hospital authorities are necessary parties to this suit is also not acceptable because the defendant is only proper authority to maintain the birth and death register. As the plaintiff has sought for declaration and for consequential relief to direct to expand the initial appearing in the birth certificate, the defendant is only necessary party to this suit. There is no need to implead other parties. In order to substantiate the contention taken by the defendant and in order to prove issue No. 3 the defendant has not stepped into the witness box. The defendant has failed to prove issue No. 3. The plaintiff has proved issue No. 1 and 2. Hence I answer issue No. 1 and 2 in the Affirmative and issue No. 3 in the Negative. 18 O.S.No.223/2021
12. Issue No. 4 and 5: While discussing issue No. 1 I held that the plaintiff has proved that the initial R.S. appearing with the name of the plaintiff stands for Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. The plaintiff has produced the document Ex.P1 to show that in his birth certificate his name is shown as R.S.Aprameya. In view of my findings on issue No. 1 and 2 the plaintiff is entitled for the relief to declare that the initial R.S. appearing with the name of the plaintiff stands for Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. The plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief to direct the defendant to expand the initial appearing with the name of the plaintiff and to issue fresh birth certificate showing the plaintiff's name as Aprameya Ramanathapura Satyanarayana. Hence I answer issue No. 4 and 5 in the Affirmative.
19 O.S.No.223/2021
13. Issue No.6: In view of my findings to the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit is decreed without cost.
It is declared that the initial
"R.S." appearing with the name of
the plaintiff stands for
"Ramanathapura Satyanarayana".
Consequently the defendant is
directed to make necessary correction in the Register of Births and issue fresh birth certificate to the plaintiff showing the plaintiff's name as Aprameya Ramanathapura Satyanarayana on payment of late fee if any.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed, computerized and printout taken by her, revised and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of March 2021) (Mohan Prabhu ) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.20 O.S.No.223/2021
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the plaintiff/s :
PW1 - Aprameya R.S. Witness examined for the defendant/s :
Nil Documents marked for the plaintiff/s :
Ex.P1 - Birth certificate
Ex.P2 - Notarised copy of SSLC marks card
Ex.P3 - Notarised copy of PUC marks card
Ex.P4 - Notarised copy of Passport
Ex.P5 - Notarised copy of Aadhar card
Ex.P6 - Notarised copy of Election Identity
card
Ex.P7 - Notarised copy of PAN Card
Ex.P8 - Notarised copy of PAN card of
plaintiff's father
Ex.P9 - Requisition letter
Ex.P10 - Notice copy
Ex.P11 - Endorsement
21 O.S.No.223/2021
Ex.P12 - Affidavit
Documents marked for the defendant/s :
Nil (Mohan Prabhu ) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.22 O.S.No.223/2021
Judgment pronounced in the open court(vide separate detailed Judgment) ORDER Suit is decreed without cost.
It is declared that the initial
"R.S." appearing with the name
of the plaintiff stands for
"Ramanathapura Satyanarayana".
Consequently the defendant is
directed to make necessary
correction in the Register of Births and issue fresh birth certificate to the plaintiff showing the plaintiff's name as Aprameya Ramanathapura Satyanarayana on payment of late fee if any.
Draw decree accordingly.
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.23 O.S.No.223/2021