Karnataka High Court
Gunda Naika P.S vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
R.F.A.No.322 OF 2013 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
Gunda Naika P.S.
S/o.Puttanayak,
Aged about 23 years,
No.282, 5th Cross,
Bhavani Nagar,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 70. ... Appellant
(By Sri S.G.Pandit, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Education Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 1.
2. The Secretary,
Karnataka Secondary Education
Examination Board,
1st Floor, 6th Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 3.
2
3. The Deputy Director of
Public Instructions,
Ramanagara Dist.
Ramanagara - 562 159.
4. The Head Master,
Sri Rama High School,
Hosadurga, Kanakapura
Taluk, Ramanagara Dist. ... Respondents
(By Sri B.P.Radha, GP for R1 to R3:
R4 served)
This RFA is filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1
CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012
passed in OS.No.5902/2012 on the file of the XL Addl. City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for
declaration.
This RFA, coming on for orders, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Court of the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, (CCH -
41) in O.S.No.5902/2012.
2. The appellant filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that his name be declared as Ganesh Nayak P.S. in the place of Gunda Nayak P.S. He has also sought the 3 direction to the respondents to incorporate his name as Ganesh Nayak P.S. in the school records. The change of name is sought based on the advice given by the elders, family priest and astrologers.
3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.4 appeared, but did not file the written statement.
4. The Trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiff has made out a case to declare his name as GANESH NAYAK P.S.?
2) Whether the name of the plaintiff is liable to be changed as GANESH NAYAK P.S. in place of his earlier name Gunda Naika P.S. in his educational records maintained by the defendants?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed in the plaint?
4) What order?4
5. The appellant got himself examined as PW1, marking the documents at Exs. P1 to P8. The Trial Court answered the points against the appellant and dismissed the suit.
6. The Trial Court's reasoning appears to be three folded: (a) It can declare the correct name of a person, if a mistake has crept into the records. (b) The Court cannot declare a new name, which is not in existence prior to the filing of the suit. (c) The appellant has not followed the procedure prescribed by the State Government and the Central Government.
7. Sri S.G.Pandit, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only procedure prescribed by the Government's circular, dated 02.05.2000 for the change of name is to approach the civil court and obtain the decree. He submits that there is no other procedure or pre-requirement prescribed by the Government. He submits that by inadvertence, the said circular could not be produced before the Trial Court. He submits that the appellant has produced 5 the same along with I.A.No.1/2013 filed invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.
8. Smt.B.P.Radha, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the appellant has not produced any documents to the satisfaction of the Trial Court that he is entitled to the relief of declaration in the matter of change of name.
9. The Circular, dated 02.05.2000 sought to be produced with I.A.No.1/2013 is a public document. Its issuance is fairly not disputed by the learned Government Pleader. The said document is required for a substantial cause and to do justice to the parties. I therefore allow I.A.No.1/2013.
10. It is worthwhile to notice that the respondents have not filed the written statement, not cross-examined the appellant and not entered the witness box. Further, they have not argued out the matter. All these things only go to 6 show that they have no tenable resistance to the prayers made by the appellant in the suit.
11. When a party approaches the Trial Court for obtaining the decree for the change of name, it is difficult, if not impossible, to produce the documents in support of the change of name. He can only produce voluminous documents to show what is his prevailing name.
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.
7
13. The suit for the change of name cannot be dismissed on the ground that the horoscope is not produced or that its author is not examined or that the family priest is not examined.
14. Thus, not finding any good reasons to uphold the judgment and the decree under appeal, I set aside the same. The change of name does not put the respondents or any third party to any prejudice. The change of name may or may not help the appellant (plaintiff). The efficacy of the astrological advice cannot be tested in the courts of law. These are the things which depend upon the belief system of the individuals and the communities to which they belong. The objective verification of the correctness of the astrological advice cannot be insisted for.
15. In the result, I pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside.8
(iii) The appellant is permitted to change his name from Gunda Nayak P.S. to Ganeh Nayak P.S.
(iv) The appellant is directed to publish the change of name in a leading daily, within two weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order.
(v) Thereafter the respondents are directed to incorporate the change of name in their records.
16. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-