Bangalore District Court
Sri.Puppanna.N.U vs The Secretary on 30 November, 2021
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 XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-12) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 30rd day of November, 2021.
PRESENT:
Sri NAGARAJAPPA A.K., B.Com.,LL.M.,
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.3427/2021
PLAINTIFF: Sri.Puppanna.N.U.,
S/o. Uriyappa,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.#, 18/10, 2nd Main,
8th Cross, Kamakshipalya,
Kaveripura, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. Shankarappa G.B., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS: 1. The Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560001.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Education,
M.S.Building, Ambedkar Road,
Bengaluru - 560001.
3. The Deputy Director,
Department of Public Instructions,
Madikeri District, Kodagu-571231.
4. The Block Education Officer,
Somawarpet District,
Kodagu-571231.
2 O.S. No.3427/2021
5. The Principal,
Junior College/High School,
Kodlipet District, Kodagu-571231.
6. The Head Master,
Government High School,
Neergundi Grama,
Somwarapet Taluk,
Kodagu District-571231.
(By Sri.Suresh, District Govt. Pleader for
D1 to D4 and D6
D5 - Exparte )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 06.07.2021
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Mandatory Injunction Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 15.11.2021
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 30.11.2021
was pronounced
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------------
Total duration : - 04 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(NAGARAJAPPA A.K)
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for seeking declaration against the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff as Prakash N.U. S/o. Cont'd..
3 O.S. No.3427/2021
Uriyappa instead of Puppanna S/o. Uriyappa in all school records and future records.
2. The nutshell case of the plaintif is that- The plaintiff by name Puppanna S/o. Uriyappa was the student of 5th and 6th defendants school. He studied from 1st std to 9th std. during the year 1974 - 1975 and 1983 to 1984 in 5 th defendant's school. Further during the year 1984-85 he has studied in the school of 6th defendant for 9th std. The plaintiff and his family members believed in God and astrology, which is believing by most of the Indians and as per the suggestion of the astrologer, the plaintiff changed his name from Puppanna N.U. S/o. Uriyappa to Prakash N.U. S/o. Uriyappa. As per the procedure, in some of the documents, changed his name easy like election ID card, Aadhaar Card, PAN card and others, but to change his name in the school records, he has to follow some procedure and get decree from the Court, hence, he has issued legal notice on 28.04.2021. Further, he has published in the Kannada Vartha Bharathi on 28.12.2019 and in English Deccan Herald on Cont'd..
4 O.S. No.3427/2021
28.12.2019 and also he has sworn to an affidavit before the Notary. Hence, this suit.
3. After service of summons, defendants Nos.1, to 4 and 6 appeared through DGP. But remaining defendants are placed exparte. Out of them defendant No.3 filed written statement. So far as defendant No.1 , 2, 4 and 6 filed memo to adopt the written statement of defendant No.3.
4. Whereas in the written statement of defendant No.3, they have taken contention that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and denied the allegations made against the defendants authorities specifically. Further, they have taken contention that, the above suit filed after lapse of so many years and as per the circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the name of the plaintiff and on this ground, the suit is not maintainable. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
Cont'd..
5 O.S. No.3427/2021
5. On the basis of the pleading the following issues have been framed-
1. Whether plaintiff proves that his correct name Prakash N.U. S/o Uriyappa but in the school records it is wrongly mentioned as Puppanna S/o Uriyappa as pleaded in the plaint?
2. Whether defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable?
3. Whether defendants prove that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?
4. Whether defendants prove that the suit is barred by law of limitation ?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for ?
6. What order or decree?
6. In order to prove the suit of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.12. On the other hand, defendants have not adduced any oral and documentary evidence.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the materials placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 - Does not arise;
Cont'd..6 O.S. No.3427/2021
Issue No.2 - Affirmative; Issue No.3 - Negative;
Issue No.4 - Affirmative; Issue No.5 - Negative;
Issue No.6 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.2: Since the issue No.2 is with regard to the maintainability of the suit and hence before taken up the remaining issues, I would like to answer this issue first for discussion.
It is true, plaintiff has filed this suit against defendant for seeking mandatory injunction to give direction to the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff as Prakash N.U. S/o. Uriyappa instead of Puppanna S/o. Uriyappa in all the concerned records maintained by the defendants. The specific and foremost contention of the plaintiff is that his original name is Puppanna N.U. S/o. Uriyappa. The same is mentioned in the school records from the year 1974 till today. Now, as per the suggestion of the astrologer, he wanted to change his name from Puppanna N.U. to Prakash N.U. and hence, he sought Cont'd..
7 O.S. No.3427/2021
for direction by way of mandatory injunction without the relief of declaration. On the contrary, the defendants have taken contention that, the suit of the plaintiff itself is not maintainable and also argued that, without the relief of declaration the mere suit for mandatory injunction is not at all maintainable etc.
10. It is true plaintiff has produced some documents to prove his contention. Those are aadhaar card, copy of the TC, daily news papers, copy of the notice issued to the defendants, postal acknowledgements those are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 respectively. Except these documents, no other documents produced by the plaintiff to show that, on what basis, he wanted to change his name as Prakash N.U. in the place of Puppanna. Because, he has pleaded that, as per the suggestion of the astrologer, he has sought for direction to the defendants to change his name in the school records. Now the crucial point for consideration, when the plaintiff has sought for change of his name from Puppanna to Prakash, without the relief of declaration to declare his name as Prakash in the place of Cont'd..
8 O.S. No.3427/2021
Puppanna, whether the Court can give directions to the defendants directly by way of mandatory injunction without declaring the correct name of the plaintiff itself is not explained by the plaintiff. Admittedly, on what basis, he sought for change of his name, but he has not produced the copy of his horoscope or the opinion of the astrologer.
11. It is true, seeking correction in the school records with regard to the name, Sur name, caste etc., is a civil right and said civil right can be sought for by way of declaration. In this aspect I would like to refer the Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as follows:
34. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right.- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief.
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so".
Whereas in the present case on hand also plaintiff has specifically pleaded that, in his school Cont'd..
9 O.S. No.3427/2021
records from 1st std to 9th std i.e., 1974 to 1985, his name is mentioned as Puppanna S/o. Uriyappa, but all of a sudden in the year 2021, he has sought for change of his name without the relief of declaration. Further, defendants counsel has argued specifically that without the relief of declaration the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be sought for. In view of the said provision of law made it very clear that without the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction cannot be sought for. That any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right. Further, in the said provision of law provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. When plaintiff wanted to change his name in the school records, first he has to sought for main relief of declaration to declare that his name is to be declared as Prakash N.U. in the place of Puppanna N.U., but without the main relief of declaration plaintiff has sought for as Cont'd..
10 O.S. No.3427/2021
good as consequential relief of mandatory injunction as contemplated under Sec.39 of Specific Relief Act. The same is not permissible under law. Hence, how the Court can give direction to the defendants to make necessary corrections in the school records. It is true in the decision reported in AIR 2007 Delhi 46 (Rashmeet Kaut Kohli (minor) vs. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), wherein lordship has observed as follows:
"Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34 - Constitution of India, Art.226 - Declaratory decree for change of name - Discretionary relief - Can be declined if person seeks to change name very frequently or wants change of name to circumvent rules and bye- laws".
Whereas in an unreported decision of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA No.1044/2009 (Huccheshwara S. Mali vs. The Head Master, Good Shepherd Higher Primary School and others) dated 02.01.2013. When I gone through the said decisions in detail in both the cases although relief sought by the plaintiff for seeking change of name in the school records, but in both the suits plaintiff sought for declaration as main relief and consequential relief of mandatory injunction. Whereas in the present case on Cont'd..
11 O.S. No.3427/2021
hand plaintiff has not sought for declaration but only he has sought for direction by way of mandatory injunction without the relief of declaration, the same is not permissible under law. Unless and until declare which is the correct name of the plaintiff to mention in the school records how the court can give direction to the concerned school authorities by way of mandatory injunction to correct the name of the plaintiff in the school records or make necessary corrections itself not explained by the plaintiff as discussed supra. Hence, even though this Court is having jurisdiction to declare the correct name of the plaintiff if plaintiff has proved by producing necessary documents, but without relief of declaration mere suit for mandatory injunction is not at all maintainable in view of the settle principle of law as discussed in the above decisions.
12. It is true the learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that the defendants not adduced any evidence and not marked any documents on their behalf. Therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants. It is a well settled principle of Cont'd..
12 O.S. No.3427/2021
law that the person who come before the Court has to prove his case on the merits and demerits of the case, but he cannot make use of the weakness of the defendant as a trump card as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the decision reported in 2004(1) KCCR 662 (K. Gopal Reddy (deceased) by legal representatives V/s. Suryanarayan and others), "A suit has to be decided on merits and demerits of the parties who approaches the court. Weakness of the defendant can not be considered as a trump card for the plaintiff". In view of the observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the argument canvassed by the plaintiff counsel holds no water.
13. It is true, "grant of declaratory relief under the Specific Relief Act is a discretionary in nature. A civil court can and may in appropriate cases refuse a declaratory decree for good and valid reasons which dissuade the court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. Merely because the suit is within time is no reason for the court to grant a declaration" as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2013) 3 SCC 182 (Kandla Port vs. Hargovind Jasraj). Whereas in the present case on Cont'd..
13 O.S. No.3427/2021
hand also, the plaintiff has not sought for such a relief of declaration. Hence, even though PW1 has deposed that after obtaining the instructions from the astrologer, he has filed this suit within limitation from the date of knowledge but without the relief of declaration it cannot be considered as discussed supra.
14. When plaintiff himself has failed to prove that without the relief of declaration mere suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable for change of his name in the school records the question of burden shift upon the defendants does not arise. When plaintiff failed to discharge his burden merely defendants not adduced any evidence it cannot be said that suit of the plaintiff is maintainable. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the considered opinion that defendants have proved that suit is not maintainable. In the result, I answer issue No.2 is in the affirmative. Cont'd..
14 O.S. No.3427/2021
15. ISSUE NO.1: In view of the findings on issue No.2, when suit of the plaintiff itself not maintainable without the relief of declaration, the question of answer to this issue at this stage does not arise. Hence, I answer to issue No.1 does not arise.
16. ISSUE NO.3: According to the defendants, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, but who are the necessary parties other than the defendants itself not specifically plead and proved by the defendants. On the othe rhand, the plaintiff has impleaded all the necessary parties. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, the contention of the defendant regarding suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties cannot be accepted in the eye of law. Hence, I answer issue No.3 is in the negative.
17. ISSUE NO.4: According to defendant suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation and suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded in the plaint that after obtaining instruction from the astrologer he has changed name in the ID Card, Aadhaar card, PAN card except school records, but when he obtained Cont'd..
15 O.S. No.3427/2021
instructions from the astrologer and what is the date of knowledge to change his name itself not specifically pleaded by the plaintiff, because as per the school records and plaint cause title, the age of the plaintiff is 51 years as on the date of filing of the suit. He has completed his education in the year 1985, but the suit is filed in the year 2021 i.e., after lapse of 35 years without any proper reasons and without any documentary evidence.
18. Moreover, although plaintiff examined as Pw.1 and reiterated the plaint averments in his examination in chief, but in the cross-examination of PW.1, he has deposed that, although he has sought for change of name after lapse of several years, but he has changed his name in the adhaar card as N.U.Prakash and therefore, he has sought for change of his name Puppanna. That itself shows that, he got knowledge to change his name more than 3 years prior to filing of this suit. Unless he has pleaded in the plaint on what date he got knowledge about to change his name in the school records as per the opinion of the astrologer, how the court can come to the Cont'd..
16 O.S. No.3427/2021
conclusion that, from the date of legal notice, cause of action arose to file this suit by assumption and presumption itself is not explained by the plaintiff. Suppose, if the plaintiff has examined the astrologer or if he has produced the documentary evidence issued by the astrologer, the Court would have considered from the date of knowledge, the plaintiff has filed this suit within 3 years or not. Here, there is no specific date mentioned by the plaintiff about knowledge. Admittedly, Ex.P.1 is the aadhaar card discloses that, his date of birth is 1969. but date of issue of aadhaar card is not appeared in Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 is the TC issued on 21.09.1987. Ex.P.3 is the election ID card issued on 24.09.2009, in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 his name mentioned as Prakash N.U., without obtaining order from the Court. If the date of issue of election ID card is taken into consideration i.e., 24.09.2009, the plaintiff ought to file the suit within 3 years from the date of his knowledge i.e., in the year 2012, but he has filed a suit in the year 2021, that means after lapse of 9 years from the date of his knowledge, he has filed this suit. Hence, I am of the considered Cont'd..
17 O.S. No.3427/2021
opinion that, the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Suppose, if the plaintiff has obtained the aadhaar card and election ID card recently i.e., within 3 years prior to filing of this suit, the Court would have accept the contention of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff has filed the suit within 3 years from the date of his knowledge or from the date of obtaining instructions or opinion from the astrologer. When he has already changed his name in the election ID card that too in the year 2009, but the suit is filed in the year 2021 itself shows that, the cause of action shown in the plaint cannot be considered for the purpose of limitation to file this suit. In the result, I am of the considered opinion that, suit of the plaintiff barred by law of limitation. Hence, I answer issue No.4 is in the affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO.5: In view of the findings on above issue No.2 and 4 the suit of the plaintiff itself is not maintainable without the relief of declaration and further suit is barred by law of limitation. When suit of the plaintiff itself is not maintainable without the relief of declaration and the suit is hopelessly barred by law Cont'd..
18 O.S. No.3427/2021
of limitation, the question of plaintiff is entitle the the relief of direction by way of mandatory injunction does not arise. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the oral and documentary evidence merely defendants not adduced any evidence is not a only ground to accept the suit of the plaintiff as discussed supra. In the result, I answer issue No.5 is in the negative.
20. ISSUE NO.6: For the foregoing reasons and discussions and considering the findings on the above issues, suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed without costs under the above circumstances. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly. (Dictated to Stenographer on computer, corrected by me, then pronounced in open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2021.) (NAGARAJAPPA A.K) XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Cont'd..19 O.S. No.3427/2021
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Sri.Puppanna.
2. DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of the aadhaar card. Ex.P.2 : Copy of the TC of PW.1. Ex.P.3 : Voter I.D. Ex.P.4 : PAN Card. Ex.P.5 : Newspapers. &6 Ex.P.7 : Affidavit. Ex.P.8 : Copy of the notice. Ex.P.9 : Postal receipts. Ex.P.10 : Postal acknowledgements. & 11 Ex.P.12 : News paper.
3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Nil
4. DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
Nil (NAGARAJAPPA A.K) XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Cont'd..