Bangalore District Court
Niranjan S vs The Government Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2024
KABC010270242023 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF V ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.13)
Present: Sri. ONKARAPPA.R, B.Sc., LL.B.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2024
O.S.No.6492/2023
PLAINTIFF:- :Mr. Nirranjan.S
Formerly known as Mr. Pradeep.S
S/o Srinivasa,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.189,
3rd Cross, Vinayakanagar,
Kengeri Upanagara,
Kengeri, Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.BA., Advocate)
-Versus-
DEFENDANTS:- : 1. The Government of Karnataka,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru-24.
2. The Secretary,
Karnataka Secondary
Education Examination
Board, 6th Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru.
3. The Block Education
Officer, South Zone-1,
Shankarmutt,
Kalbuilding, Bengaluru.
4. The Head Master,
Vidyabharathi High School,
No.25/26, Apoorva Layout,
3rd Cross, 8th Main Road,
2
O.S.No.6492/2023
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bengaluru.
5. Income Tax Department,
Office No.106,DBS House 26,
Cunningham Road,
Bengaluru.
6. Office of the Regional
Transport Officer (RTO),
Vishweshwaraiah Layout,
Railway Mens Employees
Layout, SMV Railway Layout,
Jnana Ganga Nagar,
Bengaluru.
7. The Commissioner,
Unique Identification Authority
of India, P.O. Box No.1947,
Khanija Bhavana Building,
Race Course Road,
Bengaluru.
(D.1 to 3, 6- III ADGP
D.7- Sri. SH
D.5- Dismissed)
Date of institution of the Suit : 06/10/2023
Declaration & Mandatory
Nature of the Suit :
injunction.
Date of commencement of recording of 16/01/2024
:
evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 30/01/2024
:
pronounced
Total Duration Year Months Days
:
00 03 24
[ ONKARAPPA.R ]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
3
O.S.No.6492/2023
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The plaintiff has filed the suit for relief of declaration of his
name. Further consequential relief of mandatory injunction in
against the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff in all
his records as Nirranjan.S instead of Pradeep.S.
2. Brief facts are as under:-
That, the plaintiff was born on 10/06/1994 to Srinivasa.H
and Rathnamma at Vandalagere grama and he was named as
Pradeep.S. The plaintiff studied and completed primary school to
high school at 4th defendant school. The plaintiff has also got PAN
card issued by defendant No.5, driving license issued by
defendant No.6 and Aadhar card issued by defendant No.7.
From the astrology point of view on the advise of family priest on
03/05/2022 his family members by performing religious function
vi.z, homa and pooja abandoned his previous name Pradeep.S
and adopted new name as Nirranjan.S and in this regard the
plaintiff has sworn to an affidavit before notary on 31/10/2022 and
made the paper publication in both English as well as Kannada
news papers viz., Indian Express and Kannada Prabha on
02/11/2022. In this regard, the plaintiff approached the
defendants with a request to change his name in all his records
from Pradeep.S to Nirranjan.S, but the defendants have advised
him to obtain a judgment and decree from the court and also
expressed their inability to rectify the same. Hence the plaintiff
got issued legal notice to the defendants. Despite receipt of the
4
O.S.No.6492/2023
same the defendants did not give any reply. If the name of the
plaintiff is changed from Pradeep.S to Nirranjan.S in all his
records no prejudice will be caused to the defendants. On the
other hand, if the plaint not allowed he will be put to great
hardship and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of
money. Cause of action for the suit aroused on 19/10/2022 wen
the plaintiff got issued legal notice. The plaintiff valued the suit as
per law. Paid court fee is sufficient. Hence, the plaintiff sought
for decreed the suit.
3. Though suit summons ordered in against
defendant No.5, the plaintiff have not furnished the proper
process fee. Accordingly as per order sheet dated 05/01/2024
suit against defendant No.5 hereby dismissed for non
prosecution. Though defendant No.7 appeared through its
learned counsel and he has the sufficient opportunity, he has not
chosen to filed the written statement. Defendant No.1 to 3 and 6
have appeared at before the court through learned III ADGP in
response to suit summons. Defendant No.1 to 3 and 6 have
chosen to filed the written statement. Wherein the written
statement they contended, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable
either in law or on facts of the case. The allegations made
against the defendants authority are all false and denied, the
plaintiffs be put to strict proof of the same. As per the circular
issued by the Commissioner of the Education Department, there
is no provision to change the name of the plaintiff in his school
records. The suit is barred by limitation as the suit is filed by the
5
O.S.No.6492/2023
plaintiff after a lapse of considerable time. The averments made
in para No.3 to 7 are all false and denied by the defendants.
There is no case of action for the suit and alleged cause of action
is imaginary. On these grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit
with costs.
4. On the basis of the above narrated pleadings this
court has framed the issues as follow:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that
his correct name is 'Nirranjan.S'
and not as 'Pradeep.S' ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the relief of declaration and
mandatory injunction as sought for ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for suit reliefs as sought for ?
4. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff
himself examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents at
Ex.P.1 to P.10. On the other hand neither of the defendants led
any evidence on their behalf.
6. Heard the argument on both sides and perused the
material on record.
6
O.S.No.6492/2023
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: In the affirmative
Issue No.3: In the affirmative
Issue No.4: As per final order for the
following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. Issue Nos.1 and 2:- The Issue No.1 and 2 are
overlapping with the each. Hence Issue No.1 and 2 that I have
taken for my common discussion to avoid repetition of the facts.
9. As per the plaintiff, he is the son to the spouse of
Srinivas.H and Smt. Rathnamma and he got born on 10/06/1994
at Vandalagere grama, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. The
plaintiff studied SSLC at 4th defendant school as per Ex.P.1 SSLC
marks card. As the plaintiff being permanently resident at the
address mentioned at cause title he got PAN card, driving license
and Aadhar card as per Ex.P.3, P.2 and P.4. Further case of the
plaintiff that, on 03/05/2022 on the day of Akshaya Thrithiya that
he changed his name from Pradeep.S to Nirranjan.S as per his
astrologer advise. With respect to change of his name on virtue
of astrologer advise the plaintiff have sworn Ex.P.7 affidavit at
before the notary in thereof. Wherein the notary affidavit he
declared and affirmed the reason for change of his name. Further
after sworn Ex.P7 notary affidavit he again advertise the same at
through daily English news paper Indian Express at Ex.P.5,
7
O.S.No.6492/2023
Ex.P.5(a) advertisement and daily Kannada news paper Kannada
Prabha at Ex.P.6, P.6(a) advertisement. The plaintiff has given,
Ex.P.5, P.5(a), P.6 and P.6(a) advertisement at through the daily
news paper as to know the intention of the plaintiff by the public
at large and to called the objection in that behalf. Net case of
the plaintiff that, as per Ex.P.1 to P.4 documents the plaintiff
basically identified in the name of Pradeep.S. But the plaintiff
have the belief in the astrology and for the advise of his astrologer
he proposed to change his name from Pradeep.S to Nirranjan.S.
The same such will and wish of the plaintiff have carried out by
him at through Ex.P.7 notary affidavit, Ex.P.5, P.5(a), P.6, P.6(a)
public advertisement. Even called out the objection from the
public by issuing a public notification at Ex.P.5, P5(a) and Ex.P.6,
P.6(a), none of the public objected the will and wish of the plaintiff.
Hence, the plaintiff approached all defendants to change of his
name at Ex.P.1 SSLC marks card by issuing Ex.P.8 legal notice
on them. Even service of Ex.P.8 legal notice on all the
defendants as per Ex.P.9 postal receipt and Ex.P.10 postal
acknowledgments none of the defendants obliged the request of
the plaintiff. Hence, cause of action to the present suit
aroused the plaintiff. It pertinent to note that, the case theory
of the plaintiff herein remains as unchallenged as since none
of the defendants have not chosen to cross-examined the
P.W.1. On the other hand to uphold the theory of the defendant's
case no material available on case record to appreciated. It also
pertinent to note the present case of the plaintiff is only with
8
O.S.No.6492/2023
respect to change of his name on the basis of advise of the
astrologer and not for proposed to changed his caste or religion.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's cardinal case that he proposed to
change his name from Pradeep.S to Nirranjan.S on the basis of
astrologer advice herein remains as unshaken. Only the claim of
the plaintiff herein on the advice of his astrologer and for better
future he propose to change his name from Pradeep.S to
Nirranjan.S. On the other hand the apprehension of the
defendants that it requires laborious work and caused expenses
may be compensated by collecting suitable fee. Alone that
ground the claim of the plaintiff cannot be denied.
10. It is not in dispute that plaintiff is not a government
servant. Though the plaintiff fail to produce Kundali or report of
Astrologer, the anxiety and hastiness of the plaintiff to make
change his name is here evident that the plaintiff required to
change of his name from 'Pradeep.S' to 'Nirranjan.S'.
Further, the law settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
with respect to faith and honour Astrological advise to the parties
in an judgment observed in RFA No.322/2013 dated 10/12/2013
(Gunda Naika.P.S Vs. The State of Karnataka) that there is no
impediment to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff stating
that, the efficacy of the astrological advice cannot be tested in
the courts of law.
11. So, in the circumstances of the case, the name of the
plaintiff has to be changed by the defendants as 'Nirranjan.S'
9
O.S.No.6492/2023
instead of 'Pradeep.S'. This view has also been supported by
the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court passed in RFA
No.284/2014 (DEC) dated 02/09/2016. Therefore, having regard
to facts and circumstances of the cases, I am of the opinion that
the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory
Injunction as observed supra. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 and
2 are in the affirmative.
12. Issue No.3:- In view of the above all discussion, the
suit of the plaintiff deserves to be allowed. Hence, I answer Issue
No.3 in the affirmative.
13. Issue No.4 :- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to
pass the following;
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff hereby decreed in against defendant No.1 to 4, 6 and 7.
That hereby declared the name of the plaintiff Nirranjan.S instead of Pradeep.S. Defendant No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 hereby directed to change the name of the plaintiff as Nirranjan.S in the place of Pradeep.S, in all his records accordingly, after collected an required fee.
Suit of the plaintiff in against defendant No.5 hereby dismissed as per order dated 05/01/2024.
10O.S.No.6492/2023 There shall be no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and signed by me and pronounced in the open Court this the 30th day of January, 2024) [ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff :
PW.1 Nirranjan.S List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 SSLC marks card Ex.P2 Driving license Ex.P3 PAN card Ex.P4 Aadhar card Ex.P5 Indian Express news paper Ex.P5(a) Relevant portion marked Ex.P6 Kannada Prabha daily news paper Ex.P6(a) Relevant portion marked Ex.P7 Affidavit Ex.P8 Legal notice 11 O.S.No.6492/2023 Ex.P9 Postal receipts Ex.P10 Postal acknowledgments List of documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 12 O.S.No.6492/2023 Operative portion of the judgment pronounced in open court vide separate judgment:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff hereby decreed in against defendant No.1 to 4, 6 and 7. That hereby declared the name of the plaintiff Nirranjan.S instead of Pradeep.S. Defendant No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 hereby directed to change the name of the plaintiff as Nirranjan.S in the place of Pradeep.S, in all his records accordingly, after collected an required fee.
Suit of the plaintiff in against defendant No.5 hereby dismissed as per order dated 05/01/2024.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 13 O.S.No.6492/2023 14 O.S.No.6492/2023