Bangalore District Court
Swapna.S. D/O Late. M vs ) The Secretary on 29 September, 2018
C.R.P.67
Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018.
PRESENT; SRI.I.F. Bidari, B.Com., LL.B (Spl).,
II ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE.
O.S.NO.2428/2018
Plaintiff: Swapna.S. d/o late. M.
Shivaramaiah, 34 years, residing at
No.1, "Mallikarjuna Nilaya", Near
Shenimahathma Temple, Mantapa
Road, Mallasandra, Bengaluru.
(By, Smt. MKS, Advocate)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) The Secretary, Karnataka
SSLC Board, First Floor, 6th
cross, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru.
2) The Deputy Director,
Department of Pre-University
Education, Bengaluru North.
3) The Principal, Maharani
Lakshmi Ammanni College
for Women Science P.O.
Bengaluru
2 O.S. No.2428/2018
4) The Vice Chancellor,
Karnataka State Open
University, Manasa Gangotri,
Mysore.
5) The Licencing Authority,
Regional Transport Office,
Nelamangala, Bengaluru
Rural District.
6) The Passport Seva Kendra,
No.45, Prestige Libra, Lalbagh
road, Bengaluru.
7) The Director, Bengaluru
University, Bengaluru.
8) The Syndicate Bank, Peenya
Industrial Estate, No.252,
100 feet road, Surekha
Complex, Peenya, Bengaluru.
(D.6 by Sri. KPR, Advocate)
(D.8 by Sri. MMR, Advocate)
(D. 1 to 5 and 7- Exparte)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the suit : 31.03.2018
Nature of the suit (suit on : Suit for declaration
pronote, suit for declaration
and possession, suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 18.09.2018
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 29.09.2018
was pronounced : Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration : 00 05 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I.F. Bidari)
II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
3 O.S. No.2428/2018
JUDGMENT
This suit of the plaintiff against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration, to the effect that the plaintiff's name be declared as "Sathyavathi.S." instead of "Swapna.S." and also for the relief of mandatory injunction, to direct the defendants to enter the name of plaintiff as "Sathyavathi.S." in the registers maintained by them, in the name of plaintiff and to grant such further relief as deem fit by the court .2. The brief facts of case are:
The plaintiff has born out of wed-lock of her parents late. M. Shivaramaiah and Smt. Lakshmi, on 07.08.1982. The defendants in the registers maintained by them, in the name of plaintiff have recorded and entered her name as "Swapna.S.". The plaintiff on the advise of astrologers, decided to change her name from "Swapna.S." to "Sathyavathi.S." for bright and 4 O.S. No.2428/2018 better future prospects in her life. Accordingly, the plaintiff has changed her name from "Swapna.S." to "Sathyavathi.S." and sworn an affidavit dated 05.06.2017, in that connection and also published the same in the English newspaper 'Indian Express' dated 10.06.2007, with-regard to the change of her name as aforesaid. The plaintiff got issued the legal notice dated 30.11.2017 through her counsel, to the defendants calling upon them, to change her name as "Sathyavathi.S." instead of her earlier name "Swapna.S.", in the records maintained by them, in the name of plaintiff. The defendants did not comply the demand made by the plaintiff through her legal notice, in-spite of service of legal notice. The plaintiff and the defendants are all within the jurisdiction of this court and cause of action arose, to the plaintiff, to file this suit as aforesaid. The plaintiff left with no alternative, filed the instant suit, for the reliefs sought as defendants failed to comply the 5 O.S. No.2428/2018 demand made by her in the legal notice. These main grounds, among others averred in the plaint, prayer to grant the reliefs as prayed for.
.3. Pursuant to the service of suit summons, the defendants 6 and 8 appeared through their counsel. The defendants 1 to 5 and 7 remained absent, in-spite of service of suit summons, hence, they are set exparte.
.4. The defendant No.6 has filed the written statement, contending that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff, to file the suit against the defendant No.6. The plaintiff has not filed any application before the defendant No.6, for change of her name and also not surrendered the passport already issued in her favour (old passport). The defendant No.6 denied most of 6 O.S. No.2428/2018 the plaint averments and called upon the plaintiff to prove the same. These main grounds, among others, contended in the written statement, prayer to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with cost.
.5. The defendant No.8 in-spite of affording sufficient time, has not filed the written statement, hence, the written statement of defendant No.8 taken as not filed.
.6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has abandon her earlier name "Swapna.S." and changed her name as "Sathyavathi.S."?
2) Whether the defendant No.6 proves that suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary party?
3) Is there cause of action to file the suit?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of declaration?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of mandatory injunction?
6) What order or decree?7 O.S. No.2428/2018
.7. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, has got examined herself as PW.1. The documents at Exs.P.1 to 25 are marked, for the plaintiff. The defendant No.6 has not adduced evidence on his behalf. The evidence of defendant No.8 taken as nil.
.8. I have heard Smt. MKS, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and heard Sri. BAM, Advocate on behalf of Sri.KPR, Advocate for defendant No.6. The argument of defendant No.8 taken as nil. Perused the records.
.9. My findings on the above issues are:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.5 :Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.6 : As per final order,
for the following:
8 O.S. No.2428/2018
REASONS
.10. Issues 1 to 5: These issues are
inter-related, hence, taken together for
discussion, for convenience, also to avoid
repetition of facts. The PW.1 Swapna.S. d/o late. M. Shivaramaiah, who is a plaintiff, has filed an affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination, reiterating most of the plaint averments. The PW.1 among others, has stated in her chief- examination that she has born out of wed-lock of her parents late. M. Shivaramaiah and Smt. Lakshmi, on 07.08.1982 and after the birth, she has been named as Swapna.S. The PW.1 states that the defendants 1 to 8 in their records maintained by them, have entered her name as "Swapna.S.". The PW.1 further states that after few years, on advise of astrologers, her mother decided to change her name from "Swapna.S." to "Sathyavathi.S." for her bright and better future prospects in her life. The PW.1 further states that she changed her name from 9 O.S. No.2428/2018 "Swapna.S." to "Sathyavathi.S." and she has sworn an affidavit dated 05.06.2017 to this effect and also published the same in English newspaper "Indian Express" dated 10.06.2017, stating that she has changed her name from "Swapna.S." to "Sathyavathi.S.". The Ex.P.17 is SSLC marks card of plaintiff. The name of the plaintiff in Ex.P.17 is shown as "Swapna.S." and her birth date is mentioned as 07.08.1982. The Ex.P.18 is an original marks card of II year P.U. of the plaintiff. The Exs.P.19 to 21 are three original marks cards of B.A. Degree of the plaintiff. The Ex.P.22 is a convocation certificate, issued by Bengaluru University, with-regard to the plaintiff having passed B.A. Degree with subjects mentioned therein. The Exs.P.23 and 24 are two original marks cards of M.A., 2nd year and 1st year marks cards of plaintiff. The Ex.P.25 is a convocation certificate issued by the Karnataka State Open University, Mysore, in the name of plaintiff of 10 O.S. No.2428/2018 her passing through Master of Arts, P.G. degree. The name of plaintiff in Exs.P.17 to 25 is recorded and mentioned as "Swapna.S.". These documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence of PW.1 corroborates the plaint averments that after the birth, the plaintiff has been named as "Swapna.S." and she has been born on 07.08.1982 and in all school and college records, her name has been recorded as "Swapna.S.". The plaintiff arrayed the Passport Seva Kendra, No.45, Prestige Libra, Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru as defendant No.6. The defendant No.6 in the written statement, among others, has contended that suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary party and there is no cause of action against the defendant No.6, hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. The PW.1 during cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendant No.6, deposed that she did give notice to the passport office, but she has not given application in passport office for re- 11 O.S. No.2428/2018 issuance of her passport. The learned counsel for the defendant No.6 submits that the defendant No.6 comes under the Union Government, under the circumstances, unless the plaintiff made the union of India and its concerned officials as defendants in the suit, the suit against the defendant No.6 is not tenable and liable to be dismissed, for non-joinder of necessary parties. No-doubt, the plaintiff for having made the Passport Seva Kendra, Bengaluru as defendant No.6 ought to have made the Union of India and its concern officials as defendants to seek the relief against the defendant No.6. This apart, the defendant No.8 is the Syndicate Bank, Peenya Industrial Estate, Peenya, Bengaluru. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not made the Union of India and its concerned officials as defendants in this suit. This suit of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed as a whole, since the plaintiff in the instant suit is seeking declaration for change of her name as 12 O.S. No.2428/2018 discussed above and the plaintiff has made the State officials concerned, as defendants in this suit and the plaintiff has studied only in the State of Karnataka and in the educational institutions in State of Karnataka, as such, considering the nature of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, there is no bar to grant the relief sought in this suit, to the extent and against the State Government officials particularly, the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, to change her name in her educational records maintained by the defendants 1 to 4 and 7. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant No.6, suit of the plaintiff against the defendant No.6 is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, hence, suit against the defendant No.6 is not tenable, so also the suit against the defendant No.8 is also not tenable, in-spite of that, suit of the plaintiff cannot be thrown out as a whole, for the reasons discussed above. These reasoning make it clear 13 O.S. No.2428/2018 that suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as discussed above, to the extent of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff against the Central Government officials and the Department, but her suit against remaining defendants in the suit can be considered in this suit. The Ex.P.1 is an affidavit dated 05.06.2017, sworn by the plaintiff before an Advocate and Notary at Bengaluru, expressing her desire and intention to change her name from "Swapna.S." to "Sathyavathi.S., as astrologer and numerologist suggested her to change her name, as aforesaid for her bright future. The Ex.P.2 is a relevant portion of public notice given by the plaintiff in English daily newspaper 'Indian Express' dated 10.06.2017, of changing her earlier name "Swapna.S." to "Sathyavathi.S.". The PW.1 has stated in her evidence that she got issued the legal notice dated 30.11.2017 through her counsel, calling upon the defendants to change 14 O.S. No.2428/2018 her name as "Sathyavathi.S." instead of her earlier name "Swapna.S.", but in-spite of service of notice, the defendants have not complied the demand made by her in the legal notice, as such, she has filed the instant suit and prayed to grant the relief as prayed for. The Ex.P.3 copy of legal notice dated 30.11.2017, got issued by the plaintiff through her counsel, to the defendants, calling upon them, to effect her changed name "Sathyavathi.S.", in-stead of her earlier name "Swapna.S.", in the records maintained by them, stating almost similar facts averred in the plaint. The Exs.P.4, 5 and 6 are the acknowledgments for having served the notice on defendants 5, 6 and 3 respectively. The Exs.P.7 to 14 are the postal receipts, for having sent the legal notice to the defendants through RPAD. The Ex.P.15 is the acknowledgment for having served the notice on defendant No.7. The Ex.P.16 is a letter dated 16.12.2017 sent by the defendant No.2, 15 O.S. No.2428/2018 pursuant to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff through her counsel. These documents marked at Exs.P.3 to 16 and the oral evidence of PW.1, corroborates and proves the fact that the plaintiff resorting to the procedure, taken steps to change her name as "Sathyavathi.S." in-stead of her earlier name "Swapna.S.", through Exs.P.1 and 2 and thereafter, requested the defendants to effect her changed name in-stead of her earlier name, but in vain, as the defendants did not comply the demand made by the plaintiff in the legal notice, as such, after elapse of statutory period contemplated u/s. 80 of C.P.C., the plaintiff has filed the instant suit. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there is no cause of action, but the evidence and the materials on record proves that there is sufficient cause for the plaintiff to file the instant suit against the defendants 1 to 5 and 7, though there is no cause of action against the defendants 6 and 8. Under the circumstances, 16 O.S. No.2428/2018 it cannot be said that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit, much less, as contended by the defendant No.6. There is no reason to disbelieve or discard the evidence of PW.1/plaintiff, to the effect that she has abandoned her earlier name "Swapna.S." and changed her name as "Sathyavathi.S.", much less, as averred in the plaint.
.11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff during argument, submits that the plaintiff has complied the legal formalities for the relief sought, hence, prayed to grant the relief. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, drawn attention of the court to the circular bearing No.ED 106 D.T.I.93(B) dated 17.02.1998 issued by the Karnataka Government Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, addressed to the Commissioner of Education Public Instructions, Bengaluru, directing that any of the students and persons, seeking change in their names, 17 O.S. No.2428/2018 father's name, birth date etc., to be effected only thereafter such persons obtain decree from the competent court of law.
.12. The right of the plaintiff in changing her name from her earlier name is a civil right and for the reasons discussed above, the plaintiff has complied the requirement of law in that regard. The evidence on record proves that the defendants 1 to 4 and 7, despite plaintiff following procedures, have not complied the request of the plaintiff, under the circumstances, there is no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff is entitle for declaratory relief, as well, the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants 1 to 4 and 7, but the suit against defendants 5, 6 and 8, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, for the reasons, discussed above, it is just to direct the defendants 1 to 4 and 7, to effect the name of plaintiff as "Sathyavathi.S." in 18 O.S. No.2428/2018 her school and college records maintained by them as sought in this suit. Hence, I hold issues 1, 3 and 4 in the affirmative and answered the issues 2 and 5 partly in the affirmative, for consideration.
.13. Issue No.6: In view of my findings on aforementioned issues 1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
[ ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendants 1 to 4 and 7 and dismissed against the defendants 5, 6 and 8.
The name of plaintiff is declared as "Sathyavathi.S." instead of her earlier name "Swapna.S.".
The mandatory injunction is issued against the defendants 1 to 4 and 7, directing them to change the name of plaintiff as "Sathyavathi.S." in the school and 19 O.S. No.2428/2018 college records, maintained by them, in the name of plaintiff.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 29th day of September, 2018.) (I.F. Bidari) II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF :
P.W.1 : Swapna S.
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Affidavit
Ex.P.2 : Paper Publication dated 10.06.2018
Ex.P.3 : Copy of legal notice
Exs.P.4-6 : Postal acknowledgments (3 in numbers) Exs.P.7-14 : Postal receipts (8 in numbers) Ex.P.15 : Postal acknowledgment 20 O.S. No.2428/2018 Ex.P.16 : Letter sent by PU Board Department Ex.P.17 : SSLC original marks card Ex.P.18 : II year P.U. original marks card Exs.P.19-21: Original marks cards of B.A. Degree Ex.P.22 : Convocation certificate Exs.P.23-24 : Original marks cards of M.A. I and II years Ex.P.25 : Convocation certificate
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Nil (I.F. Bidari), II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
IBRAHIM Digitally signed by IBRAHIM FEERASAB
BIDARI
DN: cn=IBRAHIM FEERASAB
FEERASAB BIDARI,ou=HIGH
COURT,o=GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN
BIDARI
Date: 2018.10.04 13:27:00 IST
21 O.S. No.2428/2018
22 O.S. No.2428/2018
23 O.S. No.2428/2018