Bangalore District Court
Master Kushal P Bharadwaj vs ) The State Of Karnataka on 3 January, 2022
KABC010119522021
Govt. of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
Dated this the 3rd day of January 2022
PRESENT: Sri. Rama Naik, B.Com., LL.B.,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No.3108/2021
PLAINTIFF MASTER KUSHAL P BHARADWAJ
S/o.Sri.G.Prakash
Aged about 14 years
Since minor represented by his father
Sri.G.Prakash
S/o.Sri.Gopalaiah
Aged about 42 years
R/at No.846, 3rd block BDA Layout
Near Ral House Apartment
Anjanapura, Bengaluru - 62
[By Pleader Sri.Srinivas.V]
/Vs/
O.S.No.3108/2021
2
DEFENDANTS 1) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Reptd. By its Chief Secretary
Department of Education
Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, 560 001
[By Pleader Smt.Shantha B. Mullur -
I ADGP]
2) SRI.CHAITANYA TECHNO SCHOOL
Sy.No.11, Gubbalala Village
Near Mantri Tranquil
Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru - 62
Reptd.by its Principal
[Ex parte]
3) JNANA SWEEKAR PUBLIC SCHOOL
Kanakapura Main Road
Talagattapura, Bengaluru - 62
Reptd.by its Head Master
[Ex parte]
4) BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER (B.E.O)
55/55, 9th Main Road, KEB Colony
New Gurappana Palya
BTM Layout 1, Bengaluru -560 029
5) D.D.P.I
Department of Public Education
No.12, Dispensary Road
Kalasipalya, Bengaluru - 560 002
[By Pleader Smt.Shantha B. Mullur -
I ADGP]
6) The Register of Birth and Death
BBMP
Corporation Circle
Bengaluru -560 002
[By Pleader Smt.Muthyalamma]
O.S.No.3108/2021
3
Date of Institution of the suit : 17.06.2021
Nature of the Suit : Declaration &
Injunction
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 22.10.2021
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 03.01.2022
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : -- 06 16
(RAMA NAIK)
VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
Suit is filed by Plaintiff to direct Defendants to correct his name as 'JNANESH P' instead of 'KUSHAL P BHARADWAJ' in his school records.
O.S.No.3108/2021 4
2) In brief, Plaintiff's case is that he born on 30.01.2007. His father's name is 'G.Prakash'. His mother's name is 'Renuka'. He studied 1st to 7th standard in Defendant No.3 Institution. Now, he is studying 8th standard in Defendant No.2 Institution. His name has been entered in his school records as 'Kushal P Bharadwaj'.
3) It is stated that, as suggested by astrologer, his name has been changed as 'Jnanesh P'. By issuing notice dated 29.03.2021 Defendants have been informed to change his name in his school records. Despite service of notice, demand made in the notice has not been complied with. Hence, prays for decree.
4) Summonses issued to Defendants were duly served. Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 appeared through I Additional District Government Pleader [I ADGP] and filed their written statement. Defendant No.6 O.S.No.3108/2021 5 marked appearance through its Advocate and filed its written statement. Defendants No.2 and 3 did choose not to appear, therefore, they were placed ex parte.
5) Defendants No.1, 4 and 5, in their written statement, state that suit filed by Plaintiff is barred by limitation as the same has been filed after a lapse of considerable time.
6) It is stated that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and same is liable to be dismissed.
7) It is stated that suit filed by Plaintiff without seeking the relief of declaration, is not maintainable.
8) It is stated that, as per Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no O.S.No.3108/2021 6 provision for change of name of student in school records.
9) It is stated that there is no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, pray for dismissal of suit.
10) Defendant No.6, in its written statement, states that there is no cause of action for Plaintiff to file the present suit.
11) It is stated that suit filed without issue of notice as required under Section 482 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act [KMC Act], is not maintainable. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
12) Issues that have been framed by this Court are as under :
1) Does Plaintiff prove that he has changed his name as 'JNANESH.P' instead of 'KUSHAL P BHARADWAJ'?
O.S.No.3108/2021 7 2) Do Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 prove that suit filed by Plaintiff is barred by limitation?
3) Do Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 prove that, in view of Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the name of the Plaintiff in school records? 4) Do Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 prove that suit filed by Plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5) Do Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 prove that Plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit ?
6) What Order or Decree?
Additional Issues framed on 03.01.2022 -
1) Whether suit filed by Plaintiff without seeking declaration is not maintainable ?
2) Does Defendant No.6 prove that no statutory notice has been served to Defendant No.6 before institution of the present suit?
13) Father of Plaintiff, Sri.G.Prakash has got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.22 in O.S.No.3108/2021 8 support of Plaintiff's case. Defendants No.1, 4, 5 and 6 have chosen not to lead their evidence.
14) Heard learned Counsel for Plaintiff and learned I ADGP for Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 and counsel for Defendant No.6. Perused the records.
15) My findings on the above Issues are :
Issue No.1 - In Affirmative Issue No.2 - In Negative Issue No.3 - In Negative Issue No.4 - In Negative Issue No.5 - In Negative Issue No.6 - As per final order, for the following :
Additional Issue No.1 - In Negative Additional Issue No.2 - In Negative REASONS 16) Additional Issue No.1 : Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 contend that suit filed by Plaintiff without O.S.No.3108/2021 9 seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable as provided in Order VII Rule 7 of CPC and same is liable to be dismissed.
17) In plaint, it is pleaded that Plaintiff has changed his name as 'Jnanesh P'. It is further pleaded that after change of his name, notice has been issued to Defendants to incorporate the same in his school records.
18) Above averments in plaint make it clear that declaration of the name of Plaintiff is explicitly implied in the relief of direction to Defendants to incorporate the name of Plaintiff in his school records.
19) PW.1, in his oral evidence, has specifically deposed that as suggested by astrologer, he has changed the name of his son as 'Jnanesh P'.
O.S.No.3108/2021 10
20) Order VII Rule 7 of CPC states that plaint shall state specifically the relief to be claimed. Rule 7 reads thus :
"7. Relief to be specifically stated.- Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement."
21) From the above provision of law, it would be clear that it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for.
22) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Ibrahim vs. Ismail and Another, [2008(5) Kar.L.J. 118], was pleased to hold that "If party is found to be entitled to such relief on facts established on evidence, Court can grant same even though it is not specifically stated in plaint, O.S.No.3108/2021 11 provided relief so grant is based on same cause of action, not inconsistent with plaint claim, not occasioning prejudice to other party and not barred by time on date of presentation of plaint - In construing plaint, Court must have regard to all allegations made in plaint and look at substance of matter and not merely its form".
23) From the facts pleaded in the plaint and from the sum and substance of the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that Plaintiff's suit is for declaration of the name of Plaintiff and for consequent direction to Defendants to make necessary correction in school records of Plaintiff. In that circumstance, merely because Plaintiff has not specifically sought for declaratory relief in the plaint, it cannot be said that suit is not maintainable. Such general relief can very much be granted to Plaintiff as the same is based on same cause of action and is not inconsistent with the relief claimed in plaint. In that O.S.No.3108/2021 12 view, there is no impediment to entertain the claim of Plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer the above issue in the negative.
24) Additional Issue No.2 : Defendant No.6 contends that no statutory notice as required under Section 482 of the KMC Act has been issued before institution of the suit and hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.
25) Ex.P.6 is office copy of legal notice dated 29.03.2021, which establishes the fact that two months' prior notice as required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] has been issued to Defendants including Defendant No.6. Ex.P.12, postal receipt, makes it clear that notice at Ex.P.6 has been duly addressed to Defendant No.6. Further, Ex.P.14 establishes the fact that notice at Ex.P.6 has been duly acknowledged by Defendant No.6. Thus, it is clear that suit has been filed after O.S.No.3108/2021 13 compliance with the provisions of Section 80 of CPC. Section 482 of the KMC Act is akin to Section 80 of CPC. Section 80 of CPC and Section 482 of KMC Act read thus :
" 80. Notice - (1) [Save a otherwise provided in sub-section 92), no suit shall be instituted] against the Government(including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public office in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of ---"
" 482. Institution of suits against municipal authority, officers and agents.-
(1) no suit shall be instituted against the Corporation or any municipal authority, Corporation Officer or servant, or any person acting under the direction of the same, in respect of any act done in pursuance or in execution, or intended execution of this Act or any rule, bye-law, regulation or order made under it or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act or any rule, bye-
law, regulation or order made under it until the expiration of [Sixty days] after a notice has been delivered or left at the Corporation office or at the place of abode of such officer, servant or person, stating the cause of action, the relief sought, and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left."
O.S.No.3108/2021 14
26) Section 80 of CPC states that no suit shall be instituted in respect of any act done by public servant in his official capacity without two months' prior notice. Section 482 of KMC Act states that no suit shall be instituted against the corporation or corporation officer in respect of any act done without prior notice of sixty days. A meaningful reading of both provisions, it is clear that purpose of both the provisions is to enable the Government to examine the claim put up in the notice and to curtail litigation. If the general applicability of CPC is taken into consideration, merely because non- issuance of notice under special statute does not invalidate the notice issued under the general law. When purpose of issuance of notice under the provisions of both statutes is one and the same, then it can be said that notice issued under Section 80 of CPC would amount to compliance of Section 482 of KMC Act. More important is that it is not at all the case of Defendant No.6 that it has not been O.S.No.3108/2021 15 served with statutory notice under Section 80 of CPC. On the contrary, Ex.P.14 establishes the fact that statutory notice has been duly served to Defendant No.6. Despite the service of notice, Defendant No.6 has neither replied nor complied with the demand made therein.
27) In Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) Vs. Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold thus :
" The two months' period mentioned in Section 80 has been provided for so that the Government shall examine the claim put up in the notice and has sufficient time to send a suitable reply. The underlying object is to curtail litigation. The object is also to curtail the area of dispute and controversy. Similar provisions also exist in various other legislations as well. Wherever the statutory provision require service of notice a condition precedent for filing of suit and prescribed period therefore, it is not only necessary for the Government or departments or other statutory bodies to send a reply to such a notice but it is further necessary to properly deal with all material points and issues raised in the notice."
O.S.No.3108/2021 16
28) In that view, there is no force in the contention of Defendant No.6 that suit is liable to be dismissed due to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 482 of the KMC Act. Accordingly, I answer the above issue in the negative.
29) Issue No.2 : Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 contend that suit has been filed after a lapse of considerable delay, and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
30) Plaintiff, in the plaint, pleads that as per the advise of astrologer, he changed his name as 'Jnanesh P'.
31) It is further pleaded that after change of his name, the same was informed to Defendants to incorporate the same in his school records as per notice dated 29.03.2021 and same was not O.S.No.3108/2021 17 complied with by Defendants despite service of notice.
32) Affidavit at Ex.P.20 makes it clear that Plaintiff's father made a declaration in the Affidavit sworn in before the Notary Public on 13.11.2021 to the effect that he has changed the name of his son as 'Jnanesh P' from 'Kushal P Bharadwaj'.
33) 'Hosa Diganth' newspaper dated 15.11.2021 at Ex.P.22 makes it clear that such declaration of change of name was published in the said newspaper to make it known to the general public.
34) Apart from that, 'Kannada Prabha' newspaper dated 12.10.2020 at Ex.P.21 makes it clear that Plaintiff's father changed the name of Plaintiff vide Affidavit dated 01.10.2020 and same was published therein.
O.S.No.3108/2021 18
35) Thus, it would be clear that Plaintiff's name has been changed as 'Jnanesh P' vide Affidavit dated 01.10.2020 and same was published in the newspaper on 12.10.2020. Even after change of Plaintiff's name, the same was brought to the notice of Defendants with a request to correct the school records of Plaintiff relating to his name. In that view, it can be fairly said that right to sue accrues to Plaintiff when the name of Plaintiff has been changed by way of Affidavits on 01.10.2020 and on 12.10.2020, when the same was published in the newspaper and even after issue of legal notice dated 29.03.2021.
36) In Karma Doma Gyatso alias Babila Kazi Vs. Mrs.Kesang Choden & Ors. [AIR 2009 Sikkim 6], the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court was pleased to hold thus :
"..... Thus, it is manifest that for the purpose of limitation the relevant Article that applies to the case of declaration with a consequential relief would be the O.S.No.3108/2021 19 residuary Article 113 and not Article 58 which applies to declaratory suits.
18. It is thus obvious that Article 58 which applies to cases of declaration simpliciter would not be applicable in the present case. Instead, it is residuary Article 113 which is attracted in the case of the Plaintiff. However, the period of limitation prescribed under both the Articles being 3 years when the right to sue first accrues (under Article 58) and when the right to sue accrues (under Article 113), the question as to which of the two Articles applies would not be of much significance particularly in the light of the finding that the right to sue accrued only in the year 2005 and the suit has been filed in the year 2006, i.e. within one year of the right to sue accruing. ......."
37) Plaintiff's suit being in the nature of declaration with a consequential relief of direction to Defendants to correct the school records of Plaintiff relating to his name, it squarely comes under Article 113 which states that limitation begins to run when right to sue accrues and not right to sue first accrues as contemplated in Article 58. Be that as it may. In the instant case, suit has been filed by Plaintiffs within three years from the date of change of name of Plaintiff. In that view, there is no O.S.No.3108/2021 20 reason to hold that Plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, I answer the above issue in the Negative.
38) Issue No.4 : Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 contend that suit of Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.
39) Cause title of plaint makes it clear that all the necessary parties have been made as parties to this suit. It is to be noticed that it is nowhere mentioned in written statement as to who are the necessary parties to be made as parties to this suit. No cross examination has been made to the said effect. No argument has been canvassed stating the name of necessary party to be arrayed as party to this suit. In that view, there is no reason to accept the contention put-forth by Defendants No.1, 4 and 5, accordingly, I answer the above Issue in the negative.
O.S.No.3108/2021 21
40) Issues No.1, 3 and 5 : Plaintiff seeks declaration of his name as 'Jnanesh P' and for consequent correction in his school records, contending that his name is 'Kushal P Bharadwaj' and same has been changed as 'Jnanesh P' as per the advise of astrologer.
41) Plaintiff's father has deposed as PW.1 reiterating the facts stated in the plaint. Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff are at Exs.P.1 to P.22.
42) Ex.P.1 is birth certificate of Plaintiff. In Ex.P.1, his name is shown as 'P Kushal' and his parents' names are shown as 'Prakash G' and 'Renuka K'.
43) Ex.P.2 is Certificate dated 08.01.2021 issued by the Principal, 'Sri Chaitanya Techno School'. It goes to show that Plaintiff is studying 8th standard in the academic year 2020-21.
O.S.No.3108/2021 22
44) Ex.P.3 is Aadhaar card of Plaintiff. In Ex.P.3, Plaintiff's name is shown as 'Kushal P Bharadwaj'. His father's name is mentioned as 'G.Prakash'.
45) Ex.P.4 is Aadhaar card of Plaintiff's father, Sri.G.Prakash, who has been examined as PW.1. Ex.P.5 is Aadhaar card of Plaintiff's mother, Smt.Renuka P.
46) Ex.P.20 is Affidavit sworn in by Plaintiff's father. In Ex.P.20, Plaintiff's father has made a declaration to the effect that he has changed his son's name from 'Kushal P Bharadwaj' to 'Jnanesh P'. Exs.P.21 and P.22 are newspapers, namely 'Kannada Prabha' dated 12.10.2020 and 'Hosa Diganth' dated 15.11.2021, wherein, change of name has been published.
47) Ex.P.6 is office copy of legal notice dated 29.03.2021, wherein a request has been made with O.S.No.3108/2021 23 Defendants to change the name of Plaintiff in his school records.
48) From the above documents, it is clear that the name of Plaintiff is 'Kushal P Bharadwaj' and same has been entered in his school records. It is further clear that his name has been changed as 'Jnanesh P' by his father [PW.1].
49) It is also clear that Plaintiff has made a request to Defendants by issue of legal notice to incorporate the name of Plaintiff as 'Jnanesh P' and same has not been complied with by Defendants.
50) Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 contend that in view of the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, it is not permissible to change the name of student in school records.
51) In Gunda Naika P.S. vs. The State of Karnataka and others [RFA No.322/2013 O.S.No.3108/2021 24 (DEC), decided on 10.12.2013], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold 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 from the competent Civil Court". Para-12 of the Judgment (supra) reads as follows :
"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".
52) In Smt.Dorasanamma Vs. State of Karnataka (RFA No.284/2014 (DEC) decided on 02.09.2016), the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to hold that "...There need not be a mistake in furnishing the name while admitting into the Educational Institution and the name can be O.S.No.3108/2021 25 changed according to the wish of the candidate." Para-9 of the Judgment (supra) reads thus :
"9. The appellant filed a suit seeking for declaration, declaring her changed name as Divya.G instead of Dorasanamma. The change of Name Act provides that name of a student up to secondary level also can be changed by getting judgment and decree from the jurisdictional court. Without the decree passed by the Competent court, the name cannot be changed in the school records. When the student attains majority and if he/she has an intention to change his/her name, the intention must be disclosed through an affidavit sworn to before the Court Officer/Notary or Magistrate in a Stamp Paper of Rs.20/- and the same has to be published in two leading news papers to make known to the general public regarding change of name. So far as student is concerned, change of name in the school records is done only on furnishing the judgment and decree by the competent Civil Court. In view of that, the appellant filed a suit seeking for declaration to declare her name as Divya.G as provided under the Change of Name Act. The reasons assigned by the trial court to dismiss the suit is contrary to the change of Name Act. There need not be a mistake in furnishing the name while admitting into the Educational Institution. The name can be changed according to the wish of the candidate. The change of Name Act provides for the same. In the instant case, none of the respondents objected for change of name. The necessary documents with regard to swearing of the affidavit in a stamp paper before the competent authority and also two paper publications made available to the court. Hence, the question of dismissing the suit for change of name is contrary to law".
(underlined by me) O.S.No.3108/2021 26
53) Thus, it is clear that the name can be changed, however, intention to change the name is required to be disclosed through affidavit sworn in before the Notary Public and same has to be published in newspapers to make known to the general public.
54) Further, Circular No.ED100DTB 2014 dated 26-10-2015 issued by the Government of Karnataka deals with the procedures for correction of school records, which reads as under :
"01. ಒಒದನನನ ತರಗತಯಒದ ಎಸಸ.ಎಸಸ.ಎಲಸ.ಸ. ತರಗತಯವರನಗನ ಓದದತತರದವ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಜನನ ದನದಒಕಗಳಲಲ ಕದದಲನಒಡರಸ ತಒಗಳಲಲ ಇಲಲದ ದನದಒಕಗಳದ ಉದದಹರಣನಗನ ಫನಬಬವರ 30, ಏಪಬಲಸ 31, ಜಜನಸ 31 ಇತದದದಗಳ ಬಗನಗ ತದದದಪಡ ಕನಜನರ ಸಲಲಸದವ ಅರರಗಳನದನ ಸಒಬಒಧಪಟಟ ಶದಲನಯ ಮದಖನಜದನಪದಧದದಯರ ಹಒತದಲಲಯನ ಪರಶನಲಸ, ತಕಕಣವನನ ಸಒಬಒಧಪಟಟ ಬ.ಇ.ಒ ರವರಗನ ಪಬಸದತವನನ ಸಲಲಸ ಅನದಮತ ಪಡನದದ ನಒತರ ಸಒಬಒಧಪಟಟ ಶದಲದ ಮದಖದಶಕಕಕರದ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡಲದ ಕಬಮವಹಸದವವದದ.
03. ಎಸಸ.ಎಸಸ.ಎಲಸ.ಸ. ಅಒಕಪಟಟಯಲಲ ವದದದರರಯ/ಪನಷಕರ ಹನಸರನಲಲ spelling, Initial, .......ದನದಒಕ ತದದದಪಡ, ಇದದಲಲ ಸಒಬಒಧಸದ ಶದಲನಯ ಮಜಲ ದದಖಲದತ ವಹ ಪರಶನಲಸ ಕನಕನತಬ ಶಕಕಣದಧಕದರಗಳನನ ನನನರವದಗ ಪಬಸದತವನನಯನದನ ಕನದರಟಕ ಪಪಬಢ ಶಕಕಣ ಪರನಕದಕ ಮಒಡಳಗನ ಕಳದಹಸ ಕಬಮವಹಸದವವದದ.
O.S.No.3108/2021 27
05. ಒಒದನನನ ತರಗತಯಒದ ಎಸಸ.ಎಸಸ.ಎಲಸ.ಸ. ತರಗತಯವರನಗನ ಓದದತತರದವ ವದದದರರಗಳ ದದಖಲನಗಳಲಲ ಹನಸರನಲಲರದವ ಅಕಕರಗಳದ ತಪದಪದಲಲ, ಹನಸರನ ಜನಜತನ ತಒದನಯ ಹನಸರದ, ಕದಟದಒಬದ ಹನಸರದ, ಅಡಡ ಹನಸರದ ಮದಲದದವವಗಳನದನ ಸನನರಸಲದ, ಹನಸರನದನ ಬದಲದವಣನ ಮದಡಲದ ಜನನ ದನದಒಕಕನಕ ದದಖಲನಗಳದ ಲಭದವದದದಗಜದ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲನಗಳಲಲ ನಮಜದಸದವದಗ ಆಗರದವ ತಪವಪಗಳನದನ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡದವದಗ ಪಡತರ ಚನಟ, ಆಧದರಸ ಕದಡದರಗಳ ಆಧದರದ ಮನಲನ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಪನಷಕರಒದ ಸನಲಸಲ ಅಫಡವಟಸ ಪಡನಯಬನನಕದ. ಈ ಸನಲಸಲ ಅಫಡವಟಸನಲಲ ನನಡರದವ ಮದಹತಗಳದ ಸದಳನಳಒದದ ಕಒಡದ ಬಒದಲಲ ಅಒತಹ ಕಬಮ ಶಕದಕಹರವದಗದವವದರಒದ ಭದರತನಯ ದಒಡ ಸಒಹತನ ಪಬಕದರ ಶಕನಕಗನ ಒಳಪಡಸಬಹದದನಒದದ ಸದರ ಅಫಡವಟಸನಲಲ ನಮಜದಸರಬನನಕದ. ಇದರ ಆಧದರದ ಮನಲನ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತ ನಯಮಗಳ ಉಲಲಒಘನನಯದಗದಒತನ ಆಯದ ಕನಕನತಬ ಶಕಕಣದಧಕದರಗಳ ಹಒತದಲಲ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡಲದ ಆಯದ ವಷರದ ಜಜನಸ01 ರಒದದ ಕಬಮ ವಹಸದವವದದ ಈ ರನತ ಕಬಮವಹಸದವದಗ ಕನದರಟಕ ಶಕಕಣ ಕದಯದ 1983 ರ ನಯಮ 11(1) ರಲಲ 05 ವಷರ ತದಒಬದ ಯದವವದನನ ಮಗದವಗನ ಶದಲನಗನ ದದಖಲದ ಮದಡಕನಜಳಳಲದ ಕನಷಟ 05 ವಷರವದಗರಬನನಕದಗರದತತದನ. ಆದದದರಒದ ವದದದರರಗಳ ಜನನ ದನದಒಕದಲಲ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡದವದಗ ಈ ಅಒಶವನದನ ಗಮನದಲಲಟದಟ ಕನಜಳಳಬನನಕದ. ಒಒದದ ಪಕಕ ಇದಕಕಒತ ಕಡಮ ಜನನ ದನದಒಕವನದನ ನಮಜದಸದದಲಲ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡಲದ ಸಒಬಒಧಪಟಟ ನದದಯದಲಯದ ಡಕಬ ತರದವವದದ ಅವಶದಕ.
06. ಎಸಸ.ಎಸಸ.ಎಲಸ.ಸ. ಆದ ನಒತರದ ಅಭದರರಗಳ ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲದತ/ಅಒಕಪಟಟಯಲಲ ಹನಸರದ, ಅಡಡ ಹನಸರದ, ಪನಷಕರ ಹನಸರದ ಹದಗಜ ಜನನ ದನದಒಕ ಇತದದದಗಳದ ತದದದಪಡಯದಗಬನನಕದಗದದಲಲ ನದದಯದಲಯದಒದ ಡಕಬ ಪಡನದದ ಬಒದ ಪಬಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ನದದಯದಲಯದ ಆದನನಶದ ಮನರನಗನ ಶದಲದದದಖಲದತ ನಯಮಗಳನನಯ ಪರಶನಲಸ ರಲದಲ- ಉಪನದನನರಶಕರದ ಪಬಸದತವನನನ ಸನನಕರಸದ 15 ದನದನಜಳಗನ ಸಜಕತ ತದದದಪಡ ಮದಡ ಆದನನಶ ಹನಜರಡಸದವವದದ.
ಶದಲದ ದದಖಲನಗಳಲಲ ವದದದರರಯ ಹನಸರದ/ ಪನಷಕರ ಹನಸರದ, ವದದದರರಯ/ಜನನ ದನದಒಕ ಇತದದದ ತದದದಪಡ ಸಒಬಒಧ ದದಖಲದಗದವ ಓ.ಎಸಸ. ಪಬಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ಮದಲನನ ಪಬತವದದಯದಗ ಪಬತನಧಸಬನನಕನಒದದ ಸದಕಷದಟ ಪಬಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ಸಕದರರದ ಮದಖದ ಕದಯರದಶರ/ಸಕದರರದ ಪಬಧದನ/ ಕದಯರದಶರ, ಪದಬಥಮಕ ಮತದತ ಪಪಬಢ ಶಕಕಣ O.S.No.3108/2021 28 ಇಲದಖನ/ಆಯದಕತರದ, ಸದವರಜನಕ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖನ, ಇವರದಗಳನದನ 1 ನನನ ಅಥವದ 2 ನನನ ಪಬತವದಧಯನದನಗ ಮದಡಲದಗರದತತದನ. ಈ ಎಲದಲ ಪಬಕರಣಗಳಲಲ ರಲದಲ ಮಟಟದ ನದದಯದಲಯಗಳಗನ ಸಕದರರದಒದ ಅಥವದ ಆಯದಕತರಒದ ನದದಯದಲಯಕನಕ ಆಕನಕನಪಣದ ಹನನಳಕನ ಸಲಲಸಲದ ಸದಧದವದಗದವವದಲಲ ಆದದರಒದ .....
ಉಪನದನನರಶಕರದ, ಸದವರಜನಕ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲದಖನ ಇವರದಗಳದ ನದದಯದಲಯದಲಲ ಸಕದರರದ ಪರವದಗ ಆಕನಕನಪಣದ ಹನನಳಕನ ಸಲಲಸದವ ಮಜಲಕ ಏಕಪಕಕನಯ ತನಪರಗನ ಅವಕದಶವದಗದಒತನ ನನಜನಡಕನಜಳದಳವವದದ ಹದಗಜ ಪಬಕರಣದ ಇತದಥರಕನಕ ಅಗತದ ಕಬಮ ವಹಸದವವದದ. "
55) From the above Circular dated 26-10-2015, it is clear that school records of the student, who is studying 1st to 10th standard can be corrected at the level of Block Education Officer by taking self affidavit of parents and in that circumstance, it is not necessary to obtain the decree from the Civil Court. After SSLC, it is mandatory to obtain decree from the Civil Court for correction of school records.
In that view, there is no significance in the contention of Defendants No.1 to 4 that there is no provision to change the name of the student in school records.
O.S.No.3108/2021 29
56) Plaintiff has issued statutory notice dated 29.03.2021 as per Ex.P.6. Exs.P.7 to P.16, P.18 and P.19, postal receipts, acknowledgments and track consignments, make it clear that despite service of notice, Defendants have chosen not to comply with the demand made in the notice. As per the above referred Circular, school records of the student, who is studying 1st to 10th standard, can be corrected at the level of Block Education Officer after taking self affidavit from the parents of the student. Defendants have evaded the request of Plaintiffs. In that circumstance, only option left open to Plaintiff is to file suit for declaration. In that view, there is no reason to contend that there is no cause of action to file this suit. In view of proving the case of Plaintiff, there would be no impediment to grant the relief as sought for by Plaintiff; accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issues No.3 and 5 in the negative.
O.S.No.3108/2021 30
57) Issue No.6 : For the foregoing discussion and findings on aforesaid Issues, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER (1) Suit filed by Plaintiff is hereby decreed.
(2) It is hereby declared that the name of Plaintiff is "JNANESH.P".
(3) Defendants are hereby directed to effect necessary changes in all the educational records of Plaintiff by incorporating his name as "JNANESH.P".
(4) Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed matter corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 3rd day of January 2022) (RAMA NAIK) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City O.S.No.3108/2021 31 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Sri.G.Prakash, dtd.22.10.2021
(b) Defendants side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Birth Certificate of Plaintiff Ex.P.2 Study Certificate dtd.08.01.2021 issued by 'Sri Chaitanya Techno School' Ex.P.3 Notary attested copy of Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff Ex.P.4 Notary attested copy of Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff's father Sri.G.Prakash Ex.P.5 Notary attested copy of Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff's mother Smt.Renuka P Ex.P.6 Office copy of legal notice dtd.29.03.2021 Ex.P.7 To Postal Receipts Ex.P.12 Ex.P.13 To Postal Acknowledgments Ex.P.16 O.S.No.3108/2021 32 Ex.P.17 Complaint dtd.07.06.2021 given to the Post Master regarding service of notice Ex.P.18 And Track consignments Ex.P.19 Ex.P.20 Affidavit of Plaintiff's father Sri.G.Prakash regarding change of name of Plaintiff Ex.P.21 'Kannada Prabha' daily newspaper dtd.12.10.2020 Ex.P.22 'Hosa Digantha' daily newspaper dtd.15.11.2021
(b) Defendants' side : N I L VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City