Bangalore District Court
Baby Niharika.L. D/O.Lokesh vs The Commissioner on 3 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-45).
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH, 2016.
PRESENT
Shri RAVI.N.M., B.Com., LL.B.,
XLIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
OS.NO.3415/2015
Plaintiffs : 1. Baby Niharika.L. D/o.Lokesh
K., aged about 3 years,
r/at.No.880, 23rd Main,
nd
2 Stage, J.P.Nagar, Mysore-
570008. Being a minor
represented by his father/
natural guardian Sri Lokesh
S/o. S.Keshav, aged about 39
years.
2. Smt.Latha.B. W/o.Lokesh.K.
aged about 35 years, r/at.
No.880, 23rd Main, 2nd Stage,
J.P.Nagar, Mysore-570008.
(By Sri. C.A.Ajith, Adv.)
-Vs-
Defendant: The Commissioner, BBMP,
Birth and Death Registrar,
N.R.Square, Bengaluru-2.
(Smt.V.Prathima, Adv.).
2 OS.NO.3415/2015
Date of Institution : 13.04.2015
Nature of the suit : For Declaration &
Injunction
Date of recording
of evidence : 07.10.2015
Date of Judgment : 03.03.2016
Total Duration : Day/s Months Years
20 10 00
JUDGMENT
The suit of the plaintiff is for the relief of declaration that the name of the plaintiff as 'Aasini Lokesh' instead of 'Niharika.L'. and also declare the name of the plaintiff's mother as 'Latha.B' instead of 'Indralatha' and for mandatory injunction to the defendant to effect the correction of names of plaintiff and her mother in the concerned records.
2. The facts pleaded in the plaint in brief are that, the plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of Lokesh K. and Smt.Latha.B the 2nd plaintiff of this suit. Baby Niharika was born on 21.4.2011 at Azon Specialty Hospital, Bengaluru and her date 3 OS.NO.3415/2015 birth has been registered as 26.4.2011 in the defendant's office. While giving information, the Mother-in-law of the 2nd plaintiff by mistake has given the name of 2nd plaintiff as Indralatha instead of Latha.B. The 2nd plaintiff in the family is called by name Indralatha but in her official records, name has been recorded as Latha.B. The name of the plaintiff was named as Niharika.L and for the future progress and prospects of the 1st plaintiff, on the advice of Astrologers the parents of the plaintiff No.1 have changed her name as 'Aasini Lokesh'. Since the 1st plaintiff is to be admitted to the School, her name is to be declared as 'Aasini Lokesh' and the name of the 2nd plaintiff needs to be corrected in the birth certificate of the 1st plaintiff as Latha.B instead of Indralatha as now recorded. There is no malice intention on the part of the plaintiffs in seeking the declaration of change of name.
It is also pleaded that, the father of the 1st plaintiff approached the defendant seeking make necessary correction in the name of the 2nd plaintiff, but they have refused to do it, 4 OS.NO.3415/2015 thereby the father of the 1st plaintiff got issued legal notice, but the demand made in it was not carried on by the defendant and thereby, sought for the relief of declaration as prayed in the relief column of the plaint.
3. After institution of the suit, summons was ordered to the defendant and the defendant has appeared through its advocate and filed the written statement.
4. In the written statement the defendant has contended that, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in law and on facts for the reason that, the plaintiff has sought for change of name which is a change in entirety which is not permitted to carry out such changes under the provisions of Birth and Death Registration Act. The suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The various averments made in the plaint from Para Nos.3 to 10 are not within the knowledge of the defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit and the documents produced by the plaintiffs are fabricated. Since there is no provision under law 5 OS.NO.3415/2015 to make correction of the name of the 1st plaintiff in entirety in the Birth Register, the defendant has rightly refused to meet with the demand made in the legal notice, with these pleadings, the defendant has sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of pleadings and the documents produced, the following issues came to be framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the name of the mother of minor plaintiff was registered in the Birth Register of the minor plaintiff as 'Indralatha.B' and it was due to inadvertence since the mother of the minor plaintiff was called 'Indralatha' in her family?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, on the astrological advice, name of minor plaintiff is now changed as 'Aasini Lokesh' in the place of her present name 'Niharika.L'?
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as pleaded by the defendant?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relieves prayed in the suit?
5. What Order or Decree?6 OS.NO.3415/2015
6. During the pendency of the suit, the natural guardian of the 1st plaintiff has got impleaded his wife as 2nd plaintiff since her name is also sought to be corrected in the birth certificate of the 1st plaintiff.
7. The natural guardian of the minor plaintiff by name Lokesh, who is the father of the 1st plaintiff and husband of 2nd plaintiff, has examined as PW.1 and documents from Ex.P1 to P6 were got marked. The defendant has not adduced any evidence. I have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the case records, on its basis, my findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Does not arise for consideration
since the 2nd plaintiff was
brought on record.
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per final order,
for the following:
7 OS.NO.3415/2015
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.3 : It is necessary to mention at this juncture
that, the defendant in the written statement has taken up a definite pleadings that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff in the plaint has pleaded that, the name of the mother of the minor plaintiff was recorded as 'Indralatha' as against her correct and true name of Latha.B. The natural guardian of minor plaintiff got impleaded his wife as 2nd plaintiff in the suit and thereby, issue No.3 regarding non-
joinder of necessary party was met by the plaintiff by arraying the mother of the 1st plaintiff as 2nd plaintiff in the suit and therefore, issue No.3 does not survive for consideration.
9. ISSUE NOs.1, 2 & 4: These issues are inter-connected with each other, for better appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, all these issues are taken together for consideration.
8 OS.NO.3415/2015
10. The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that, the plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of himself and Smt.Latha.B is the 2nd plaintiff of this suit. Baby Niharika was born on 21.4.2011 at Azon Specialty Hospital, Bengaluru and her date birth has been registered as 26.4.2011 in the defendant's office. While giving information, the Mother-in-law of the 2nd plaintiff by mistake has given the name of 2nd plaintiff as Indralatha instead of Latha.B. The 2nd plaintiff in the family is called by name Indralatha but in her official records, name has been recorded as Latha.B. The 1st plaintiff was named as Niharika.L and for the future progress and prospects of the 1st plaintiff, on the advice of Astrologers the parents of the plaintiff No.1 have changed her name as 'Aasini Lokesh'. Since the 1st plaintiff is to be admitted to the School, her name is to be declared as 'Aasini Lokesh' and the name of the 2nd plaintiff needs to be corrected in the birth certificate of the 1st plaintiff as Latha.B instead of Indralatha as now recorded. There is no 9 OS.NO.3415/2015 malice intention on the part of the plaintiffs in seeking the declaration of change of name.
It is also pleaded that, the father of the 1st plaintiff approached the defendant seeking necessary correction in the name of the 2nd plaintiff, but they have refused to do it, thereby the father of the 1st plaintiff got issued legal notice, but the demand made in it was not carried on by the defendant and thereby, sought for the relief of declaration as prayed in the relief column of the plaint.
11. In order to support the oral evidence of P.W.1, he has produced Ex.P1 which is the Birth certificate of minor plaintiff Niharika.L. It is seen from Ex.P1 that, the name of the mother of plaintiff at Column No.5 has been recorded as Indralatha. P.W.1 has produced Ex.P2 document which is the SSLC Marks Card of 2nd plaintiff, wherein her name has been recorded as Latha.B. Ex.P3 is the legal notice issued by P.W.1 to the defendant and Ex.P4 and P5 are the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment and Ex.P6 is the 10 OS.NO.3415/2015 endorsement issued by the defendant stating that, the change of names sought by P.W.1 cannot be rectified in the concerned records of the defendant office.
12. On perusal of the plaint averments and also the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 has pleaded and deposed that, minor plaintiff was named as Niharika.L, but on the astrological advice for future prospects of the daughter of P.W.1, she has been named as 'Aasini Lokesh'.
13. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and also the cross-examination of P.W.1, it discloses that, P.W.1 and 2nd plaintiff are the parents of minor plaintiff have changed the name of their daughter as 'Aasini Lokesh' and thereby they have sought for change of name in the birth certificate. It is the humble ambition of all parents that, their children should grow up in life with all prosperity and live happily, sometimes when there would be no progress or the kids would not be up to the expected level when compared with other children, generally one goes for astrological advice and in such event, if 11 OS.NO.3415/2015 there would be any positive advice to change the name, generally the parents would adopt the advice of the astrologer and change the name and by itself it would not in any way laced with any malice on the part of the parents in getting the change of name in the concerned records maintained in the public office.
14. In the instant case, P.W.1 has deposed that, for the progress and welfare of his daughter, they have changed her name as 'Aasini Lokesh' from the earlier name which was named to her as 'Niharika.L.'
15. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, the name of the 2nd plaintiff is Latha.B., but while informing the defendant authority to enter the birth date event of minor plaintiff, the name of the 2nd plaintiff was informed as 'Indralatha' instead of 'Latha.B'. On perusal of Ex.P2 document, it is very much clear that, the name of the 2nd defendant has been recorded as Latha.B in her SSLC marks card and thereby, the evidence of P.W.1 inspires confidence in the mind of the Court 12 OS.NO.3415/2015 to accept the name of 2nd plaintiff is Latha.B. and not Indralatha. It is also but common in some families, the persons will be called with pet name and it may be in that connection the informant must have informed the authorities with the same name and it has been recorded, by recording the name of the 2nd plaintiff as 'Indralatha' in Ex.P1 document, this Court does not find any mistake or fault on the part of the defendant, however, it must be the mistake of informant who did not inform the official name of the 2nd plaintiff as recorded in Ex.P2 document. Since in Ex.P2 document, the official name of the 2nd plaintiff has been recorded as Latha.B. and in Ex.P1, the mother's name of the minor plaintiff has been recorded as 'Indralatha' both will not coinside with each other and the name mentioned in Ex.P1 would give a conflict name and to avoid it, rightly the PW.1 has approached the defendant seeking correction in the name of the plaintiff No.2, but the defendant has issued Ex.P6 endorsement on the ground that, it has no right to make any 13 OS.NO.3415/2015 changes in the names of persons entered in the Birth Register and accordingly, Ex.P6-Endorsement came to be issued.
16. In view of the reason that, the defendant is required to act within the parameter of statutes, the Birth and Death Register Act does not empower the defendant to change the names from the one mentioned in the Birth and Death Register, thereby the defendant has issued endorsement to the P.W.1 to approach the Civil Court to get necessary orders.
17. From perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by P.W.1 and also having regard to the answers given by P.W.1 in the cross-examination, this Court holds that, there is no malafide on the part of P.W.1 in seeking correction of name in the register of birth of the minor plaintiff so also name of her mother and thereby, this Court holds that, the plaintiff has got every cause of action and to get rectify the mistake which has crept in, in the official records and needs to be corrected to avoid any future 14 OS.NO.3415/2015 complications and conflicts and thereby he has approached the Civil Court seeking decree for rectification of names and thereby, this Court holds that, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relieves prayed in the suit, accordingly, issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 are answered in the affirmative.
18. ISSUE NO.5: For the reasons assigned on issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the findings recorded on the, the following order is passed :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed against the defendant.
It is declared that, the name of the minor plaintiff is 'Aasini Lokesh' instead of present name stands 'Niharika,L.' It is further declared that, the correct name of the 2nd plaintiff is 'Latha.B'. and not 'Indralatha' as recorded in Ex.P1 document [Birth Certificate of minor plaintiff].15 OS.NO.3415/2015
It is further ordered and directed to the defendant to incorporate the name of the minor plaintiff as 'Aasini Lokesh' in the place of 'Niharika.L.' as recorded in the Birth Register AND Further directed the defendant to correct the name of the 2nd plaintiff as 'Latha.B.' in the Birth Register of the minor plaintiff, wherein her name has been entered as 'Indralatha'.
The defendant is further directed to issue fresh Birth Certificate of the minor plaintiff entering the name of the minor plaintiff as 'Aasini Lokesh' and her mother's name as 'Latha.B.' Since the defendant being the public authority has no right to change the names or make any corrections in the Birth and Death Registers, the plaintiffs are under obligation to get the decree from the Civil Court and thereby, there is no order as to costs of the suit.16 OS.NO.3415/2015
Draw decree in terms of judgment.
---
(Dictated to the judgment writer, computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of March, 2016).
(RAVI. N.M.), XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : Sri Lokesh.K. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:
- Nil -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 : Birth certificate of Kum.Niharika.L.
Ex.P2 : SSLC Marks Card of wife of P.W.1 Latha B.
Ex.P3 : Copy of Legal notice
Ex.P4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P5 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P6 : Endorsement issued by defendant
17 OS.NO.3415/2015
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:
- Nil -
XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.18 OS.NO.3415/2015
3/3/2016:
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (VIDE SEPARATE JUDGMENT) The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed against the defendant.
It is declared that, the name of the minor plaintiff is 'Aasini Lokesh' instead of present name stands 'Niharika,L.' It is further declared that, the correct name of nd the 2 plaintiff is 'Latha.B'. and not 'Indralatha' as recorded in Ex.P1 document [Birth Certificate of minor plaintiff].19 OS.NO.3415/2015
It is further ordered and directed to the defendant to incorporate the name of the minor plaintiff as 'Aasini Lokesh' in the place of 'Niharika.L.' as recorded in the Birth Register AND Further directed the defendant to correct the name of the 2nd plaintiff as 'Latha.B.' in the Birth Register of the minor plaintiff, wherein her name has been entered as 'Indralatha'.
The defendant is further directed to issue fresh Birth Certificate of the minor plaintiff entering the name of the minor plaintiff as 'Aasini Lokesh' and her mother's name as 'Latha.B.' Since the defendant being the public authority has no right to change the names or make any corrections in the Birth and Death Registers, the plaintiffs are under obligation to get the decree from the Civil Court and thereby, there is no order as to costs of the suit.
Draw decree in terms of judgment.
[RAVI N.M.] XLIV ADDL.City Civil. & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.20 OS.NO.3415/2015