Bangalore District Court
Sri.Keerthi Raj.M.G vs ) The State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2020
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 2nd day of September, 2020
PRESENT: Sri.Rama Naik, B.Com., LL.B.,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No :8422/2018
PLAINTIFF SRI.KEERTHI RAJ.M.G
S/o.late Sri.Madappa,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.355/B, 8th Cross,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru -560 085.
[By Pleader Sri.Umakanth.H.S]
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1) The State of Karnataka
By its Chief Secretary
Department of Education
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru.
2) The Deputy Director of
Public Institutions,
Bengaluru South Range,
Kalasipalya, Opp KIMS,
Bengaluru.
OS.NO:8422/2018
2
3) The Secretary,
SSLC Board, Malleswaram,
Bengaluru.
[By Pleader - Smt.Shantha B.Mullur,
I Addl.Dist.Govt.Pleader]
4) Head Master,
Vikasa English High School,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru.
[ By Pleader Sri.N.Vageesh]
Date of Institution of the suit : 23.11.2018
Nature of the Suit : Declaration
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 23.09.2019
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 02.09.2020
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 01 09 09
---
(RAMA NAIK)
VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
OS.NO:8422/2018
3
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by Plaintiff for declaring his father's name as 'Madappa' and to direct the Defendants to make necessary corrections in school records.
2) Plaintiff's case, in brief, is that, Plaintiff completed his primary and SSLC in 4th Defendant School. 3rd Defendant issued his SSLC Marks Card, wherein, his father's name is wrongly shown as 'Dorairaj M'. His father's name is 'Madappa'. Election Card, Aadhaar Card and other records of his father show the correct name of his father. He came to know the mistake crept in SSLC Marks Card recently and if the said mistake is not rectified, it would lead to complication to him in future. Plaintiff approached Defendants to rectify the mistake crept in school records and issued legal notice on 27.06.2018, which was duly served to them. Instead OS.NO:8422/2018 4 of complying the request, Defendant No. 4 issued untenable reply. Hence, prays for decree.
3) Defendants No.1 to 3 marked their appearance through 1st Addl. District Government Pleader. Defendant No.4 marked appearance through its Counsel.
4) Defendants No.1 to 3, in their written statement, state that, suit is barred by limitation as the same is filed after a lapse of considerable time. There is no cause of action to file this suit. As per Circular issued by Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision for change of name in school records. Hence, pray for dismissal of suit.
5) Defendant No.4, in its written statement, states that, when Plaintiff was admitted to 2 nd standard in its School, admission form was submitted by his mother, wherein, the name of OS.NO:8422/2018 5 Plaintiff's father has been mentioned as 'Madappa'. Earlier, he studied in 'Daisy Convent, Mysuru', who sent the transfer certificate of Plaintiff, wherein also, the name of Plaintiff's father has been shown as 'Madappa'. At the time of Plaintiff's admission to 4th Defendant school, his birth certificate was produced, wherein, his father's name has been mentioned as 'Madappa' and mother's name as 'Gowramma'. It is stated that, at the time of admission to higher primary in 4th Defendant school, in the admission form, father's name was shown as 'Dorairaj'. When clarification was sought for, it was stated that, his father's name was changed from 'Madappa' to 'Dorairaj'. Plaintiff's father's name has been continued in the school records as per the information provided by his parents.
6) It is stated that, Plaintiff made a request to change his father's name in school records as 'Madappa'. Communication was sent to the Director OS.NO:8422/2018 6 (examination) in this regard. It was informed that, in view of Government Notification, necessary corrections in school records regarding the change of name can be done through decree of the Court. Plaintiff was informed to approach the Court. 4th Defendant is bound by the order of the Court that may be passed by the Court. Hence, prays for appropriate order.
7) Heard learned Counsel for Plaintiff and learned 1st ADGP for Defendants No.1 to 3. Perused the record.
8) Following Issues have been framed by this Court :
1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that his father's name has been shown wrongly in educational records of the Plaintiff as 'DORAIRAJ M' instead of 'MADAPPA' ?
2) Whether the Defendants No.1 to 3 prove that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is barred by limitation?
OS.NO:8422/2018 7
3) Whether the Defendants No.1 to 3 prove that there is no cause of action for the Plaintiff to file this suit ?
4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
5) What Order or Decree?
9) Plaintiff, in this suit, has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 in support of his case. Defendants No.1 to 4 have not chosen to adduce any evidence.
10) My findings on the above Issues are :
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2 - In the Negative;
Issue No.3 - In the Negative;
Issue No.4 - In the Affirmative;
Issue No.5 - As per final order, for the following :
OS.NO:8422/2018 8 REASONS
11) Issues No.1 and 3 : As both these Issues are connected with each other, they are taken up together for discussion.
12) This suit came to be filed by Plaintiff for declaring his father's name as 'Madappa' and consequent corrections in the school records, contending that, his father's name is 'Madappa'. In SSLC marks card, his father's name is wrongly mentioned as 'Dorairaj.M.' It is contended that, a requisition was made to school authority. They failed to make necessary corrections in the school records and therefore, notice under Section 80 of CPC was issued. In spite of notice thus given, Defendants have failed to make necessary corrections in school records.
13) P.W.1 has reiterated the plaint averments in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief.
OS.NO:8422/2018 9 Ex.P.1 is SSLC marks card of Plaintiff, wherein, Plaintiff's father's name is shown as 'Dorairaj M'. Ex.P.2 is Identity Card of Plaintiff issued by Election Commission of India on 18.04.2013. It discloses the name of Plaintiff's father as 'Madappa'. Ex.P.3 is Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff issued by Government of India on 01.06.2011, wherein, Plaintiff's father's name is mentioned as 'Madappa'. Ex.P.4 is Certificate issued by Department of Pre-University Education. It reveals the name of Plaintiff's father as 'Madappa'. Ex.P.5 is PAN Card of Plaintiff, in which, Plaintiff's father's name is shown as 'Madappa'. Ex.P.6 is Provisional Degree Certificate issued by 'Sri Krishna Degree College', wherein, Plaintiff's father's name has been referred to as 'Madappa'. Ex.P.7 is legal notice dated 27.06.2018 issued by Plaintiff to Defendants, in which, Defendants are requested to make necessary corrections in school records. Exs.P.8 to P.11 are postal receipts for having addressed the notice to Defendants. Exs.P.12 to OS.NO:8422/2018 10 P.14 are postal acknowledgments for having received the notice by Defendants No.1, 2 and 4. Ex.P.15 is reply, dated 04.08.2018 addressed by 4 th Defendant intimating the Plaintiff to approach the Court for decree.
14) From Exs.P.2 to P.6, it has been clear that, Plaintiff's father's name is 'Madappa'. Only in Ex.P.1, SSLC marks card, his father's name is shown as 'Dorairaj M'. Even his subsequent education records, i.e. PUC Marks Card at Ex.P.4 and Provisional Degree Certificate at Ex.P.6 clearly go to show that his father's name is 'Madappa'. Defendant No.4, in its written statement, has specifically pleaded that, earlier, Plaintiff studied in 'Daisy Convent, Mysuru' and they sent Transfer Certificate of Plaintiff, wherein, Plaintiff's father's name has been mentioned as 'Madappa'. Further, it is pleaded that, when Plaintiff was admitted to 4th Defendant school, in the admission form submitted by his parents, his father's name has been OS.NO:8422/2018 11 mentioned as 'Madappa' and birth certificate of Plaintiff submitted to 4th Defendant discloses his father's name as 'Madappa'. It is also pleaded that, only when submitting application to Higher Primary education in 4th Defendant, his father's name has been shown as 'Dorairaj M' in the application and same has been mentioned in SSLC marks card. Having taken into consideration of pleadings of 4 th Defendant, it has been further clear that, in his primary school records, his father's name was correctly mentioned as 'Madappa'. Pleadings of 4th Defendant further justify the case of Plaintiff that, his father's name is 'Madappa'. Plaintiff has been put a question in his cross-examination by Defendants No.1 to 3 to the effect that, what are the documents that have been produced by Plaintiff in order to show his father's name as 'Madappa'. Plaintiff deposes that, he has produced PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, Voter Card, PUC Marks Card and Degree Marks Card to show his father's name as OS.NO:8422/2018 12 'Madappa'. In fact, said documents are produced and marked as Exs.P.2 to P.6. Thus, it is clear from the documentary evidence coupled with oral testimony of P.W.1 that, Plaintiff's father's name has been wrongly shown in SSLC marks card as 'Dorairaju M'.
15) Defendants No.1 to 3 contend that, as per Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, change of name of student in school records is not permissible. Contention as taken by Defendants No.1 to 3 reads thus :
"3. ..... As per the circular issued by the Commissioner of education department, there is no provision to change the name of the father in school records. ... "
16) No Circular as such has been produced in this regard by Defendants. From the contention of Defendants No.1 to 3, it can be said that, Defendants have no authority to make changes in school records without the order of Civil Court. In Gunda Naika P.S. Vs. The State of Karnataka OS.NO:8422/2018 13 and others (RFA No.322/2013 (DEC), decided on 10.12.2013), the Hon'ble High Court 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 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".
(underlined by me)
17) Hence, it is clear that, only requirement of Defendants' is that, there must be an order from the Court to make necessary changes in school records OS.NO:8422/2018 14 in view of Circular issued by the Education Department.
18) Plaintiff has pleaded that, recently, he came to know that his father's name has been wrongly mentioned as 'Dorairaj M' instead of 'Madappa' and therefore, he made a request to 4th Defendant to change the same and issued legal notice to Defendants on 27.06.2018 as required under Section 80 of CPC for necessary correction in school records. It is also pleaded that, in spite of notice thus served to them, they failed to make necessary changes in school records. Ex.P.7, legal notice goes to show that, Plaintiff specifically requested Defendants to make necessary corrections in school records. Addressing of Ex.P.7 is proved by Exs.P.8 to P.11 and its acknowledgments by Defendants are proved by Exs.P.12 to P.14. Ex.P.15 further makes it clear that, 4th Defendant has intimated Plaintiff to get decree from the Court. However, Defendants No.1 OS.NO:8422/2018 15 to 3 neither responded nor addressed the claim of Plaintiff. Nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination of PW.1 in order to prove that there is no cause of action to file this suit. These bundle of facts themselves make it clear that, there has been a cause of action for Plaintiff to file this suit. In that view, it has to be said that, Defendants' contention as to cause of action is mere evasive without any substantiation. Accordingly, I answer Issues No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.3 in the negative.
19) Issue No.2 : Defendants No.1 to 3 contend that, suit filed by Plaintiff is barred by limitation, as the same has been filed after lapse of considerable time. Plaintiff has been cross- examined by Defendants No.1 to 3 as to the point of limitation. He has specifically deposed that, he came to know the mistake in school records when he was applying for Government job in the year 2017. In the plaint, it is pleaded that, after coming OS.NO:8422/2018 16 to know of the mistake in school records, he made request to 4th Defendant and issued legal notice to Defendants on 27.06.2018. In Union of India and others Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., and another [AIR 2004 SC 1596], Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that :
"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."
20) In this background, relief sought for by Plaintiff is to be looked into. Plaintiff has sought for declaration of his father's name and consequent corrections in the school records. Article 58 deals with declaration simpliciter without any consequential relief, which applies to OS.NO:8422/2018 17 declaratory suits only. Hon'ble Sikkim High Court was pleased to differentiate the intendment of both Articles 58 and 113 in Karma Doma Gyatso alias Babila Kazi Vs. Mrs.Kesang Choden & Ors. [AIR 2009 Sikkim 6], wherein, it has been held that :
"..... 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.
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. ......."
21) Hence, I am of the view that, Plaintiff's suit being a declaration with a direction to Defendants to make necessary corrections in school records, it squarely comes under Article 113, which states OS.NO:8422/2018 18 that, cause of action arises when right to sue accrues. Right to sue accrues to Plaintiff in the year 2017, the year in which he applied for Government job and on 27.06.2018, the date of legal notice and consequent failure of Defendants. Under such circumstances, it can be fairly said that, Plaintiff's relief for declaration is within the time as prescribed in Article 113; accordingly, I answer this Issue in the negative.
22) Issue No.4: As discussed above, Plaintiff has proved his case by placing documentary, as well as oral evidence. If Plaintiff's father's name is not corrected, same would create anomaly in the school records of Plaintiff, which would affect the future prospects of Plaintiff, hence, suitable corrections is required in the school records. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for; accordingly, I answer this Issue in the affirmative.
OS.NO:8422/2018 19
23) ISSUE NO.5 : In view of the foregoing discussion and findings on Issues No.1 to 4, I pass the following:
ORDER (1) Suit filed by Plaintiff; is hereby decreed.
(2) It is hereby declared that
Plaintiff's father's name is
'Madappa'.
(3) Defendants are hereby directed to effect necessary changes in all the educational records of Plaintiff by rectifying the name of Plaintiff's father as 'Madappa'.
(4) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed matter corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 2nd day of September, 2020.) (RAMA NAIK) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
OS.NO:8422/2018 20 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Sri.Keerthi Raj.M.G dtd.23.09.2019
(b) Defendants' side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 True copy of SSLC Marks card of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 True copy of Election Identity Card of P.W.1
Ex.P.3 True copy of Aadhaar Card of P.W.1
Ex.P.4 True copy of PU Marks Card of P.W.1
Ex.P.5 True copy of PAN Card of P.W.1
Ex.P.6 True copy of Provisional Degree Certificate of
P.W.1
Ex.P.7 Legal Notice dated 27.06.2018 issued to
Defendants
Ex.P.8 Postal Receipts for having issued legal notice To to Defendants Ex.P.11 Ex.P.9 Postal Acknowledgments to Ex.P14 Ex.P.15 Letter dtd.04.08.2018 issued by Defendant No.4
(b) Defendants side : NIL VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.
OS.NO:8422/2018 21