Bangalore District Court
Sri. Rajesh Bhojraj Chugh vs The Commissioner on 24 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-38), BANGALORE CITY.
PRESENT:
SRI. VENKATARAMAN BHAT, B.Sc.,., LL.B. (Spl.)
XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38)
BANGALORE
DATED: THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
OS.NO.2345 OF 2017
PLAINTIFF/S SRI. RAJESH BHOJRAJ CHUGH
S/O LATE BHOJRAJ PAGANMAL,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.3 6, 2ND MAIN,
3RD CROSS, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALOLRE - 560 003.
(By Sri. Santosh Kumar K. Adv.)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALOLRE - 560 002.
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
BIRTHS AND DEATHS,
CORPORATION COMMERCIAL
BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, SUBASH
NAGAR, (MAJESTIC) BEHIND
UPPARPET POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
(By Sri. KNS, Adv.)
Date of Institution of the 01.04.2017
suit
2 O.S.No.2345 of 2017
Nature of suit Suit for declaration and
mandatory injunction
Date of commencement of 26.07.2017
recording of evidence.
Date on which judgment 24.08.2017
was pronounced.
Total Duration. Years Months Days
00 04 23
XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
3 O.S.No.2345 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff filed this suit for change of his father's name in the death certificate issued by the defendants No.1 and 2 as BOJARAJ PAGANMAL @ BHOJRAJ PAGANMAL CHUGH instead of Bhojraj.
1. The brief facts of the case are as follows.
Father of the plaintiff died on 07.09.1978 at Malleswaram, Bangalore. The death entry has been entered in the register maintained by defendants as per provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 on 11.09.1978. Accordingly, death certificate has been issued entering the name of the father of plaintiff as Bhojaraj. But according to the plaintiff, his father's name is BOJARAJ PAGANMAL @ BHOJRAJ PAGANMAL CHUGH. It is submitted that Paganmal is the name of his father. Whereas "Chugh" is the surname of the family of the plaintiff. Further plaintiff came to the knowledge of this mistake recently. Thereafter the plaintiff submitted a representation to defendant No.2 on 20.02.2017 to change and alter his father's name as BOJARAJ PAGANMAL @ BHOJRAJ PAGANMAL CHUGH. 4 O.S.No.2345 of 2017 An endorsement has been issued by defendants on 13.03.2017 to the effect that it was not possible to correct the name of the father of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to filed this suit.
2. Suit summons came to be issued against the defendants. Defendants put appearance through Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Standing Advocate and filed written statement. Written statement of the defendants reads as under.
Suit is not maintainable. Defendant denied essential facts of the plaint. It is submitted that the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under Section 482 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. It is further submitted that there is no scope to change the name of the father of plaintiff under Section 15 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, except clerical or formal errors. It is submitted that since the plaintiff is seeking major change of name of his father the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5 O.S.No.2345 of 2017
3. Out of the above pleadings, this court framed the following issues.
1. Whether plaintiff proves that his father's name wrongly entered in the death certificate issued by defendants, as Bhojaraj?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that his father's correct name is BOJARAJ PAGANMAL @ BHOJRAJ PAGANMAL CHUGH?
3. Whether defendants prove that suit is not maintainable in view of absence of statutory notice as required under Section 482 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed?
5. What order or decree?
4. Trial was held. During the course of trial the plaintiff was examined as PW 1 and Ex.P1 to P11 got marked. PW 1 was subjected into cross examination by the advocate for defendants. Defendants did not enter into witness box.
5. Heard submission of both advocates.
6. My findings on the above points are as under.
Issues No.1 : In affirmative
Issues No.2 : In affirmative
Issues No.3 : In negative
Issues No.4 & 5 : As per final order, for the
following.
6 O.S.No.2345 of 2017
REASONS
7. ISSUE No.3: Before going into discuss the merits of
the case, I would like to give finding on this issue. It is a specific contention of the defendants that suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 482 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. It is true to say that before filing any suit against Corporation, or any officers of the said Corporation as per Section 482 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 notice is required to be issued. It discloses that after filing of this suit, this case was posted to with regard to notice by this court. At that stage, advocate for plaintiff filed an application under Section 482-A of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. After hearing the Advocate for plaintiff, this court allowed the said application and dispensed with the issuance of notice. More over, Section 482 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 contemplates dispensation of issuance of notice by moving the application by the parties in case of urgency. That being the position, it cannot be held that the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly I answer issue No.3 in negative. 7 O.S.No.2345 of 2017
8. ISSUES No.1, 2 AND 4: Ex.P5 is the death certificate of father of the plaintiff issued by defendants. On the perusal of Ex.P5 it discloses that name of the father of the plaintiff has been entered as Bhojaraj. Whereas the father's name has been entered as Paghanmal. One thing is very clear that even as per Ex.P5 also the name of father of plaintiff's father is Paghanmal. Now plaintiff interested to add the surname as "Chugh" with the name of his father. It can be noticed that the date of death of father of the plaintiff has been entered as 07.09.1978. In order to prove his father's name and surname, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P6. Ex.P6 is the death extract of brother of the plaintiff. As per Ex.P6 one Deepak who is said to be the brother of plaintiff died on 16.09.2004. It is entered as Deepak B. Chugh. It goes to very clear that the surname of the family is 'CHUGH'. The plaintiff has further produced water bills and revenue tax paid receipts. Wherein the name of father of the plaintiff has been entered as Phaganmal. On the available materials placed before this Court it discloses that name of the father of plaintiff is Phaganmal, surname as "Chugh".
8 O.S.No.2345 of 2017
9. Now the question for consideration is what is the meaning and legal meaning of name of a particular person. It is more useful to refer para 8 of the judgment reported in AIR 2007 DELHI 46 (RASHMEET KAUR KOHLI (MINOR) VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATOIN (CBSE)). Para 8 reads as under.
"8. "Name" is any word or words by which any animate or inanimate thing is known or designated. In Black's Law Dictionary 'Name is defined as under.
Name: A word or phrase identifying or designating a person or thing and distinguishing that person or thing from others.
'Legal Name. A person's full name as recognized in law". A legal name is usually acquired at birth or through a Court order. There are no rules governing a legal name's length or constitution. It may be a single name (e.g. Prtince) or include words not generally used in human names (e.g. Moon Unit).
10. In order to decree the suit under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff must prove that he has right over any properly of the suit or having legal character over the subject matter of the suit. Unless these two elements are 9 O.S.No.2345 of 2017 established the plaintiff cannot be succeeded in a declaration suit. Now, the question for consideration is whether change of name is a 'legal character' and declaratory decree can be passed. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the same para held as under.
"A decree of declaration can be passed under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. However, grant of decree of declaration is the discretion of the Court and can be declined in certain circumstances. Take a case where as person seeks to change his / her name very frequently or wants change of name to circumvent the rules and bye-laws of the respondent and if such a person is allowed change of name, it may lead to violation of rules and bye-laws and other complications., In such and similar circumstances, a decree for declaration which is discretionary can be declined by a court. With this objective the rule of the respondent for change of name contemplates, a declaration from the competent court, as the court can decline / grant a decree for declaration in certain circumstances as it is a discretionary relief, as contemplated under the specific Relief Act.
11. It is not the case of the defendants that plaintiff had filed earlier suit for change of name of his father. There is no material to show that the plaintiff is in the habit of filing suit to the change the name of his father frequently. That being the position, as per the above legal principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi a declaratory relief can be passed.
10 O.S.No.2345 of 2017
12. Apart from this Section 15 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 reads as under.
"15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths - If it is proved to be satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances, in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.":
13. As per this provision it is permissible to the satisfaction of the Registrar to change any entry erroneously effected or fraudulently effected without altering original entry on verification he may change the entry. When Ex.P5 itself discloses that name of the father of Bhojaraj Alias Phaganmal, issuance of endorsement by defendant No.2 as per Ex.P4 is against the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. More over, the suit of this nature is not either exclusively or impliedly barred under the provisions of the said Act. Of course, the plaintiff is not 11 O.S.No.2345 of 2017 seeking any declaratory decree in the relief column. However, it is implicit in the relief column. In other words, relief of declaration reflects in the relief column. Plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of court fee for Rs. 1,000/- and court fee of Rs. 25/- with regard to mandatory injunction. Unless declaratory decree is granted, mandatory injunction has no effective in the eye of law. That being the position, Section 24(d) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is attracted. Plaintiff is required to pay additional court fee of Rs. 25/- with regard to declaratory relief before drawing up of decree. At this stage also court fee can be collected from plaintiff.
14. Taking into consideration, evidence placed on record, a ground is made out to decree the suit. Accordingly, I answer issues No.1 and 2 in affirmative and issue No.4 as per final order.
15. ISSUE No.5: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
12 O.S.No.2345 of 2017
ORDER (1) Suit is decreed.
(2) It is declared that name of father of plaintiff is BOJARAJ PAGANMAL @ BHOJRAJ PAGANMAL CHUGH instead of Bhojaraj.
(3) Plaintiff is permitted to pay an additional court fee of Rs.25/- on the declaratory decree before drawing up of decree.
(4) Defendants are directed to issue fresh death extract of father of plaintiff by inserting the name of BOJARAJ PAGANMAL @ BHOJRAJ PAGANMAL CHUGH, subject to collection of necessary fee, if any and also to enter the same in the register maintained by the defendants.
(5) Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
(6) Draw decree, accordingly. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by him, corrected and then
pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2017) (VENKATARAMAN BHAT) XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38) BANGALORE ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW1 Sri. Rajesh Bhojaraj Chugh Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 - One receipt of BWSSB
Ex.P2 - Representation
Ex.P3 - Receipt of BBMP
Ex.P4 - Endorsement issued by BBMP
Ex.P5 - Death Extract
Ex.P6 - Death Extract
Ex.P7&8 - Tax paid receipts
13 O.S.No.2345 of 2017
Ex.P9&10 - Electricity bills
Ex.P11 - Notarized copy of Aadhar Card.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38), BANGALORE.14 O.S.No.2345 of 2017
Judgment passed and pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment). The operation portion of the order reads thus -
ORDER (1) Suit is decreed.
(2) It is declared that name of father of plaintiff is BOJARAJ PAGANMAL @ BHOJRAJ PAGANMAL CHUGH instead of Bhojaraj.
(3) Plaintiff is permitted to pay an additional court fee of Rs.25/- on the declaratory decree before drawing up of decree.
(4) Defendants are directed to issue fresh death extract of father of plaintiff by inserting the name of BOJARAJ PAGANMAL @ BHOJRAJ PAGANMAL CHUGH, subject to collection of necessary fee, if any and also to enter the same in the register maintained by the defendants.
(5) Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
(6) Draw decree, accordingly.
XXXVII ACCJ, (CCH-38)