Bangalore District Court
Sri. Yadav G.J vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE (C.C.H.No.8)
Dated this the 11th day of December 2015.
PRESENT: SRI.S.V.Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB(Spl).
XI Addl.City Civil Judge, B'lore city.
O.S.No. 7396 of 2013
Plaintiff 1 Sri. Yadav G.J
son of Govindaraj,
aged about 25 years,
residing at No.94/0, (12/15) 8th cross,
RMV extension, Sadashivanagar,
Bangalore-80
(By K.V.V, Advocate)
: Vs :
Defendant: 1 The State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary, Department of
Education,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore -560001
2 The Secretary, S.S.L.C Board,
Malleswaram, Bangalore -560001
3 The Deputy Director of Public
Instruction, Bangalore North District,
Myore Bank Circle,
Shikhakara Sadana,
Bangalore -560009
4 The Director,
2 O.S.No.7396 of 2013
Department of Pre-University Board,
Malleswaram,
Bangalore -560003.
5 The Registrar,
Visveshwaraiah Technology University,
Belgaum, Karnataka
6. The Head Master,
Poorna Prajna Education Centre H.S,
Sadashivanagar,
Bangalore North, Bangalore -80
7. The Principal,
MES Kishore Kendra,
Pre University College, Malleswaram,
15th Cross, Bangalore-560003
8. The Principal,
Atria Institute of Technology,
ASKB, Campus, AGS colony,
1st Main Road, Anand Nagar,
Hebbal, Bangalore-24
9. The Regional Passport officer,
Passport Department, Double Road,
Bangalore-27
D.1 to D.6, D.8- Exparte,
D.7- SRV Advocate
D.9- SLM, advocate)
Date of the institution of 7.10.2013
suit:
Nature of the suit: Declaration and
injunction
Date of the commencement 25.11.2014
of recording of the evidence:
3 O.S.No.7396 of 2013
Date on which the judgment 11.12.2015
was pronounced :
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
02 02 04
XI Addl.City Civil Judge,
B'lore city.
JUDGMENT
This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants seeking for declaration relief that plaintiff's mother name is Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma, consequently, directing the defendants to change the name of plaintiff's mother as Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma instead of B.Krishnamma in all school records/educational records and marks cards of the plaintiff and for such other reliefs as plaintiff is entitled to and costs of the suit.
2. The facts in brief of plaintiff's case is as follows:-
The plaintiff has completed his 10th Standard studies from 6th defendant's school and accordingly, defendant No.6 has issued T.C in the name of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant issued original SSLC marks card after plaintiff has passed 4 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 10th Standard examination conducted by the KSEE Board, Bangalore. Plaintiff completed his 1st year and 2nd year PUC as plaintiff had studied till college run by defendant No.7 at Bangalore and after completion of 2nd PUC, in the institution of defendant No.7, they issued T.C in the name of plaintiff and defendant No.7 has issued T.C in the name of plaintiff and defendant No.4 being the Director of the Department of PUC Board, they have issued the marks card after passing plaintiff 2nd PUC examination held for the academic year. The plaintiff has completed his B.E (Batchelor of Engineering) in Electronics and Communication Engineering by studying the said course in the institution of defendant No.8 and they have issued T.C in the name of plaintiff and defendant No.5 being the University under which defendant No.8 institution has been affiliated and defendant No.5 has issued convocation certificate and marks card in the name of plaintiff after completion of B.E and plaintiff has relied upon marks card issued in respect of SSLC, PUC and in respect of B.E convocation certificate produced and described as Annexure "A" to "C" and plaintiff also stated further that his mother's name is Smt.Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma and he has relied upon the original voter I.D card issued by Election Commission of India in respect of his mother and also voter I.D Card in respect of Smt. Krihnamma marked at Annexure "D" and "E". The 5 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 plaintiff was looked after by his aunt Smt. Krishnamma( sister of Plaintiff's father), wherein plaintiff was residing along with his aunt Smt. Krihnamma since his childhood. Hence, by over site the said Smt. Krishnamma had given her name in the educational records a plaintiff' mother, wherein plaintiff recently verified the documents and records pertaining to his school, where he studied and he came to know in the educational records, his mother's name in the column provided, it is wrongly appearing as Smt. Krihnamma instead of Smt.Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma and plaintiff in order to avoid future complications has submitted representation to the defendants and requested the defendants to rectify this mistake crept in the educational records in respect of plaintiff's mother's name for which, defendants have not responded to and on the contrary, defendant No.7 and 9 have refused to entertain the rectification sought by the plaintiff and defendant No.7 relied upon the circular issued by the Commissioner of Department of Education dated 2.5.2000 and in this regard, the plaintiff has caused statutory legal notice dated 26.7.2013 calling upon the defendants to make suitable rectification in respect of his mother's name, but defendant No.7 and 9 replied the notice and they refused to effect any amendment or rectification to delete the existing name of Smt. Krihnamma and to entertain the request of the plaintiff 6 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 to insert the name of Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma and thereby plaintiff alleging cause of action has filed this suit for declaration and for consequential mandatory injunction against defendant No.1 to 9 after waiting for statutory period of 6 months from the date of service of mandatory suit notice issued by the plaintiff dated 26.7.2013.
3. Defendant No.7 and 9 appeared through counsel and filed their written statement, whereas other defendants 1 to 6 and 8 have been placed exparte and defendant No.7 in the written statement filed contended that the above suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is wholly misconceived and an abuse of the process of court completely baseless and meritless and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs in limine on the following among other grounds:-
(a). The plaintiff allege that he was taken care of by his aunt Smt.Krishnamma and that he has resided along with her since his childhood and by oversight his aunt Smt. Krishnamma has entered her name as plaintiff's mother in all the educational records of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claims that the same came to his knowledge recently and on that basis, the aforesaid relief ha been claimed. As per the 7 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 records maintained by the Admissions Department of the defendant No.7, the application form submitted by the plaintiff clearly states that his biological mother's name is in the admission form is Smt. Krishnamma and as such, plaintiff cannot at this juncture state that the same was overlooked by the plaintiff , wherein the admission application form was signed by the plaintiff as well a hi mother Smt. Krishnamma and hence, plaintiff is guilty of not stating the true facts. On this ground alone, suit is liable to be dismissed.
(b) Defendant No.7 has no authority to change the name of the plaintiff's mother in the educational records and marks card of the plaintiff and as per the guidelines issued by the Commissioner, Educational Department, Government of Karnataka, any change in the educational records of a student can be effected only by obtaining a decree of the Civil Court. Hence, defendant No.7 does not have the enabling power/authority to entertain such request of change of name of plaintiff's mother at it is serious consequence and therefore, the same is permissible only within the parameter of the prescribed norms. As the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any case for change of his mother's name on available materials and hence, no relief can be granted.8 O.S.No.7396 of 2013
(c). Plaintiff has not produced any documents to prove that his mother is Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Smt. Bhagyalakshamamma and not Smt. Krishnamma and on the contrary, document produced on record are neither substantive not sufficient to establish the name of plaintiff's mother is Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Smt. Bhagyalakshamamma and not Smt. Krishnamma.
(d). The present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and cause of action arose when plaintiff discovered that the name of the plaintiff's mother has been entered incorrectly in all his educational records.
(e) plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts of this case and further plaintiff is also guilty and not stating the true facts and hence, on this ground, suit is liable to be dismissed.
(f). Without prejudice to the above contention, defendant No.7 further contended that the claim of plaintiff that his mother's name is Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Smt. Bhagyalakshamamma and not Smt. Krishnamma cannot be accepted merely on the basis of a declaration made by the plaintiff unless it is substantiated by producing birth 9 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 certificate issued by Municipal authority, the records from the Nursing Home/hospital, where plaintiff was born and if no such records are available, then the only way to determine is by subjecting the parties to DNA test and it is compulsory for the hospital authority where the child was born , to inform the Corporation authority in respect of birth of a child's date and time including the name of the person, who has given birth to the child. The plaintiff has failed to provide the aforesaid material, plaintiff is not entitled to any such declaration and consequently no decree can be passed directing the defendants to effect the change in their records. On the other hand, the plaintiff has consistently declared the name of Smt. Krishnamma as his mother and as such, it is not proper to entertain the suit at this point of time.
g) Without prejudice to the above preliminary objections raised, since the plaintiff has not stated the true and correct facts. Defendant No.7 submitted the following facts in para No.2 of written statement contending that defendant No.7 is a Pre-University college recognized by the Department of Pre-
University Education, Government of Karnataka Bangalore and defendant No.7 has established in the year 1993 by the Mysore Education Society, which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act 1860. The plaintiff 10 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 became a part of defendant No.7 Institution by enrolling himself as a student of 1st PUC and plaintiff was pursuing science faculty in defendant No.7 Institution from the year 2003-2005 and plaintiff was required to produce certain documents along with his admission application form and at that time, the plaintiff has produced required admission form by providing information of hi personal information as well as his family, wherein the documents produced by the plaintiff along with hi application form included his provisional marks card, caste certificate and T.C issued to him by 6th defendant Institution and the same was counter signed by the plaintiff as well as mother Smt. Krishnamma. Plaintiff was admitted into the defendant's Institution after careful examination of documents produced by him. As per the register of admissions maintained by 7th defendant Institution to name of plaintiff's mother is shown as Smt. Krishnamma and not Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Smt. Bhagyalakshamamma and instruction given in the admission form clearly stated that 7th defendant Institution shall refused the admission of the candidate , wherein the information provided by the candidate/student is found to be false and the admission application form has been signed by the plaintiff as well as his mother Smt. Krishnamma. Hence, the above suit is hopelessly barred by law on limitation and application form submitted by the plaintiff as the time of his admission in the 11 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 defendant's Institution has been under signed by the plaintiff as well as his mother Smt. Krishnamma and hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the said mistake in respect of his mother's name appearing in the educational records due to oversight is not tenable contention in view of these facts, wherein the plaintiff has filled application form on 22.5.2003 and as such, cause of action is barred by time by virtue of the same, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as it is barred by limitation and defendant No.7 denied the rest of the plaint averments made by the plaintiff, wherein defendant No.7 contended that it has no knowledge that plaintiff has completed his B.E decree in Engineering from defendant No.8 Institution and defendant No.8 has issued T.C and defendant No.5 has issued convocation certificate and marks card and hence, defendant No.7 also denied the issuance of statutory legal notice against defendant No.7. However defendant No.7 has replied the notice dated 26.7.2013 directed the plaintiff to obtain the decree from the court. To that effect as the defendant No.7 is not authorized to do the same as per guidelines issued by the Government of Karnataka. Hence, plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and this suit is sham suit and filed only for the purpose of making unlawful gain and deserves to be dismissed.
12 O.S.No.7396 of 20134. Defendant No.9 filed written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts . The suit appears to be hopelessly barred by time since in the plaint, the plaintiff has averred the cause of action for the suit arising when plaintiff came to know about the mistake crept in the educational records in the mother's column and plaintiff got issued legal notice on 26.7.2013 to defendants, but this cannot be accepted since the name of the mother of plaintiff will appear in the SSLC marks card issued by KSEE Board and SSLC Marks card was issued to the plaintiff when he was at the age of 16 years and there is no direct relief sought for against defendant No.9 is concerned. Defendant No.9 contended that passports are issued on the basis of the information given by the applicant and in the application along with supported documents such as school certificate, birth certificate and in the present case, plaintiff's mother name is completely different and some other person was entered in this school documents and he has to now furnished a court order/directions to issue the passport with his mother's name and as explained above, the plaintiff has to apply for change of mother's name in the passport in the usual manner along with his old passport, court order/direction for change of mother's name by paying prescribed fees and other relevant documents and defendant No.9 contended that it has replied the notice caused by the 13 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 plaintiff dated 26.7.2013. Hence, defendant No.9 on this defense resisted the suit and pray for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the following Issues have been framed and also additional issue No.1 is framed on 16/10/2015. :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that his mother's name is Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that his mother's name has been wrongly mentioned as Krihnamma instead of Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakhmamma in his school/college records as alleged?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief ought for?
4. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL.ISSUE Whether the defendant No.7 and defendant No.9 proves that the suit is barred by limitation?
6. In order to prove their respective contentions raised in this case , parties have adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence, wherein plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.27 and also further examined P.W.2 and 3 namely Smt.B. Krishnamma as P.W.2 and Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Smt. 14 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 Bhagyalakshamamma as P.W.3 and with this evidence, plaintiff's side evidence is closed. Defendant No.7 examined its present Principal working in defendant No.7 Institution as D.W.1 and in the evidence of D.W.1, documents Ex.D.1 to 3 came to be marked.
7. Counsel apearing for defendant No.9 submited memo in the suit on 17/6/2015 stating that defendant No.9 has no evidence to lead in this case and thereafter it is taken as defendants' evidence closed and matter is posted for arguments.
7. Heard the arguments of counsel appearing for the plaintiff and heard arguments of counsel for defendant No.7 on 6/10/2015.
8. Initially this court on the basis of pleadings (P.O of CCH41) has framed the issues on 10/11/2014 by framing issues No.1 to 4. After transfer of the suit from Cch41 , this court at the time of hearing arguments and in view of specific contention raised in the written statement of defendant No.7 and defendant No.9 wherein this court felt it necessary to frame additional issue No.1 in respect of plea of limitation raised in the written statement of defendant No.7 and 9. Accordingly, this court after hearing both sides, framed this additional issue which is necessary for deciding the suit since the issue regarding limitation is purely a legal issue to be 15 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 decided by the court even though there is no contention in the written statement and accordingly, additional issue No.1 is framed on 16/10/2015 and an opportunity is given to both parties to submit their arguments on this additional issue framed on record. Thereafter I have heard the arguments of both sides on this additional issue framed in respect of limitation plea and thereafter this suit is posted for judgment.
8. After hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the pleadings and on appreciation of evidence of P.W.1and by perusal of documents Ex.P.1 to P.27 and considering the documents marked in the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 to 3 and considering the arguments contentions and by appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering written arguments of counsel for defendant No.7, I answer the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 to 3: In the affirmative Additional.Issue In the negative No.1:
Issue No.4: The suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be decreed partly against defendant No.1to 8 and suit against defendant No.9 deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons:-16 O.S.No.7396 of 2013
REASONS
9.Issues No.1 and 2 : Since these issues are interlinked to each other and evidence placed on record is common in respect of issue No.1 and 2 by the plaintiff, hence, issue No.1 and 2 are taken up for discussion together in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
10. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of admission of him to the school, mother's name of plaintiff was recorded as B. Krishnamma and the same has been continued till completion of his education and it is the case of the plaintiff that he lost his father when he was minor and as such the plaintiff was brought up by his Aunt B. Krishnamma, who was his father's sister and accordingly, plaintiff who was minor after the death of his father, was being look after by his Aunt B.Krishnamma and plaintiff was residing with his Aunt B.Krishnamma in her house and prosecuted his primary and Higher Secondary education and thereafter he got admitted after passing of S.S.L.C. examination to defendant No.7's college and studied first P.U.C and second P.U.C from defendant No.7 institution and he has prosecuted his studies till 10th standard in defendant No.6 school and thereafter plaintiff prosecuted further studies in defendant No.8 institution and obtained decree certificate in B.E and thereafter 17 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 plaintiff verified his education records and recently noticed that there is a mistake crept in educational records in the mother's column wherein plaintiff's mother name as Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma. But, instead of his mother's name, the name of his Aunt B.Krishnamma has been recorded in the school records/marks cards issued by various institution(defendants) and thereafter plaintiff in order to correct/rectify this mistake has caused notice on 17/6/2013 to defendants wherein defendants have received legal notice/statutory notice issued under section 80 of C.P.C and some of the defendants have not replied the same, wherein defendant No.7 and 9 have replied the notice and directed the plaintiff to obtain the decree from the Civil Court in order to correct the name of the plaintiff in the educational records and defendant No.7 and 9 declined to make corrections relying upon government circular issued by the Education Department dated: 2/5/2000 and defendant No.9 in its reply informed the plaintiff to apply for necessary corrections in the passport document by following procedure as contemplated by Government of Karnataka in the Public Instructions department office at Bangalore and to produce court order for the necessary corrections to be attended in the passport document and defendant No.7 and 9 have filed their written statement and plaintiff after waiting for statutory period of 60 days after issuance of Legal notice dated: 26/7/2013 has filed 18 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 this suit for relief of declaration in respect of mother's name Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma instead of his Aunt B.Krishnamma as appeared in the school records and for consequential mandatory injunction relief directing the defendants to change the name of plaintiff's mother's name as Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma by deleting his Aunt B.Krishnamma in all school and other educational records.
Hence, plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants by presenting the plaint on 7/10/2013.
11. Defendant No.7 and 9 have filed their written statement denying the claim of plaintiff and defendant No.7 and 9 relied upon Government circular/notification dated:
2/5/2000 wherein defendant No.7 specifically contended that, it has no jurisdiction or authority to make rectification of mother's name in respect of plaintiff who has studied in its institution from 2003 to 2005 wherein plaintiff got admitted to first P.U.C in defendant-7's college and completed P.U.C education in the year 2005 as plaintiff was got admitted to defendant No.7 school on 25/2/2003 and he completed P.U.C education and thereafter plaintiff got admitted to different education institutions and as such defendant No.7 relying upon Government circular/notification dated: 2/5/2000 has issued reply notice to the plaintiff , statutory notice as per Ex.P.22 dated: 5/8/2013, defendant No.7 also replied the notice directing the plaintiff to obtain court decree in order to 19 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 make corrections in respect of his mother's name and defendant No.4 issued reply as per Ex.P.23 directing the plaintiff to seek corrections in the educational records in the primary and higher secondary school records and thereafter to approach Directorate of P.U. education, Bangalore North in order to seek corrections in respect of name of plaintiff's mother and this reply given by defendant No.4 on 28/8/2013 and the Registrar of VTU ie., defendant No.5 has given reply directing the plaintiff to apply for change of plaintiff's mother's name by producing court decree or gazette copy and also to remit prescribed fee of Rs.500/- by way of D.D in the name of Finance Officer, VTU, Bangalore for taking further action in the matter. Hence, defendant No.4,5,7 and 9 have replied the notice caused by plaintiff dated: 26/7/2013 and defendant No.7 filed detailed written statement denying the case of the plaintiff and on the contrary, defendant No.7 contended that plaintiff himself is the signatory along with B. Krishnamma for the admission form submitted on 22/5/2003 and as such plaintiff has suppressed the material fact and he has not disclosed true state of affairs in respect of his mother's name and as such plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and there is suppression of material facts by the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration.20 O.S.No.7396 of 2013
12. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, wherein plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 through affidavit evidence filed in lieu of examination-in-chief wherein P.W.1 deposed that he has studied upto 10th standard from defendant No.6 school and defendant No.6 has issued Transfer certificate and P.U.C board has issued marks card after passing of P.U.C Science and thereafter he completed Bachelor of Engineering degree from defendant No.8bInstitution whrein defendant No.8 is coming under the purview and jurisdiction of VTU and defendant No. 5 has issued Convocation certificate in favour of plaintiff after passing of Bachelor of Engineering decree and thereafter plaintiff verified the records pertaining to educational career, wherein he noticed that in the educational records /mars card, name of his Aunt B.Krishnamma who is sister of P.W.1's father wherein plaintiff was residing with Krishnamma since his childhood. Hence, by oversight, the name of his Aunt B.Krishnamma is entered in the school records, wherein correct name of plaintiff's mother is Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma. P.W.1 stated in his affidavit evidence that name of his mother has been wrongly shown as Krishnamma instead of Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma and in order to avoid future complication, he made request to the defendants by issuing Legal notice and requested them to rectify this mistake crept in the educational records . But, defendants have not responded to his request and hence, 21 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 P.W.1 relying upon Legal notice dated: 26/7/2013 caused to the defendants and wherein after obtaining reply from defendants 4,5,7 and 9 wherein plaintiff has knocked the doors of this court seeking for declaratory relief in respect of his mother's name and also for mandatory injunction relief and P.W.1 got marked Ex.P.1 to 27 documents in his oral evidence and the said documents marked through P.W.1 and hence he prayed the court for declaration.
13. Counsel appearing for defendant No.7 cross- examined P.W.1 wherein he admits that his name is Yadav G.J. his father's name is Govindaraj and surname is Yadav and he admits that, he has studied P.U.C education in defendant No.7 college and he has submitted the application for admission for P.U.C first year course in the college of defendant No.7,wherein defendant No.7 admits the zerox copy of application form and said application is marked at Ex.D. 1 and P.W.1 further admits his signature shown on the back page of Ex.D.1 and he also admits on the left side of back page of Ex.D.1 in the column provided for signature of parent, wherein there is signature of B.kr is appearing and P.W.1 admits his signature in Ex.D.1 and it is marked at Ex.D.1(a) and P.W.1 admits that B. Krishnamma who has signed Ex.D.1 is the witness P.W.2 and she deposed in this case and P.W.1 admits that he has filled the admission form Ex.D.1 in his hand-writing. P.W.1 stated that his father Govindaraj died when he was 8 months baby 22 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 and he did not remember when his late father Govindaraj got married Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma ie., P.W.3 and he do not know when his later father Govindaraj adopted ration card during his life-time. P.W.1 has given his date of birth as 14/1/1988 as he was born in Bowring Hospital at Bangalore. P.W.1 further admits that he do not have original birth certificate and P.W.1 denied that he is deposing falsely in respect of his birth certificate. Further P.W.1 admits that he will tried to get original balance of convenience from the Corporation office and to produce the same in the suit and P.W.1 admits that even at the time of joining the college of defendant No.8, he has declared his mother name as B. Krishnamma and P.W.1 denied the suggestion that his mother's name is B. Krishnamma and as such he has declared his mother's name as B.Krishnamma before the school/college authorities.
14. P.W.1 admits that he is working in Bosch company and he has declared his mother's name as Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma before the said company and he admits that he has got 5 sisters who are elders to him and his Aunt B.Krishnamma is the wife of late Narayana and they have got 4 children and P.W.1 denied that he has falsely claiming that his mother's name is Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma.
23 O.S.No.7396 of 201315. Counsel for defendant No.9 cross-examined P.W.1 wherein he deposed that his name is Yadav G.J. and he completed Engineering in Electronics and Communication(E&C) and he passed S.S.L.C. examination in the year 2003 and obtained marks card from the S.S.L.C. board in the year 2003 and this marks card issued by S.S.L.C. board reflects the parents' name of the student including date of birth etc., and in the S.S.L.C. marks card, his father's name is marked as Govindaraj and mother's name as B. Krishnamma and P.W.1 denied the suggestion that suit is barred by limitation and as such suit is liable to be dismissed.
16. Plaintiff has examined his aunt P.W.2 B. Krishnamma, w/o late Narayana as witness P.W.2 in this case,wherein P.W.2 appeared before this court and deposed on oath by filing affidavit evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief and stated that, during the childhood of plaintiff, he was made to reside along with her as plaintiff is her brother's son and she used to look after the plaintiff and his education and by oversight, she has given her name as mother's name in mother's column and in educational records and same is reflected till date. P.W.2 further deposed that, she has no objections to delete her name in the mother's column and enter the name of Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma in educational records of the plaintiff, wherein P.W.2 also deposed that now plaintiff is residing with his mother Smt. 24 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma. Hence, with these affidavit averments, P.W.2 deposed in this case as witness for plaintiff and she relied upon Ex.P.4 ie., election voter I.D card issued by Election commission of India, which is marked at Ex.P.4.
17. Counsel appearing for defendant No.7 cross- examined to P.W.2 wherein she admits that plaintiff is her brother's son as he was born in Shivajinagar Hospital, at Bangalore, but, she do not remover the date of birth of plaintiff and P.W.2 denied her knowledge regarding specific date, month, but, she deposed that plaintiff was born in the year 1986 and she admits that she is not having custody of original birth certificate in respect of plaintiff and P.W.2 stated that she has produced original birth certificate in respect of plaintiff before the school and she confronted with original application form submitted by plaintiff to defendant No.7 school , wherein P.W.2 identified her signature on this application form submitted on 22/5/2003 and it is marked at Ex.D.2 and signature of P.W.2 is marked at Ex.D.2(a) and since defendant No.9 and counsel appearing for defendant Nod.9 called out absent, hence, taken as no cross-examination.
18. Plaintiff got examined his mother Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma, W/o Govindaraj as witness P.W.3, she appeared in the suit and deposed by way of 25 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 affidavit evidence filed in lieu of examination-in-chief and P.W.3 deposed in para-1 of her affidavit claimed to be the mother of plaintiff of the suit and as such she know the facts and circumstances of this cse and P.W.3 deposed further that during childhood days of plaintiff, he was made to reside with Krishnamma who is her sister-in-law wherein P.W.2 her sister- in-law had looked after the plaintiff and also P.W.2 has given education to her son and as such by oversight name of Krishnamma was appearing in the educational records of the plaintiff as mother of plaintiff and same is reflected till date and P.W.3 stated that now plaintiff is residing with her and with these averments P.W.3 deposed her evidence stating that she is the mother of plaintiff and one B. Krishnamma is her Sister-in- law, who is the wife of later Narayana and P.W.3 identified Ex.P.5 ie., original voter I.D card and she admits the particulars, wherein recited in Ex.P.5.
19. Counsel for defendant No.7 cross examined to P.W.3 wherein she admits that plaintiff was born in Gousha hospital at Bengaluru and she do not remember specific date, month and date of birth of plaintiff and according to witness, plaintiff was born in the year 1986 and she do not know whether the concerned authority has issued original birth certificate in respect of her son. Plaintiff herein and P.W.2 deposed that as she was suffering from illness after she gave birth to plaintiff and she was not in possession of original birth certificate of her 26 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 son. However, P.W.3 deposed that she can produce original birth certificate of plaintiff after obtaining the same from concerned authority and P.W.3 also admits that she was aware that P.W.2 had signed on the admission application form submitted to defendant No.7 college in respect of her son plaintiff. Defendant No.9 and counsel called out, absent and hence, taken as no cross-examination to plaintiff.
20. On behalf of defendant No.7, present Principal working in defendant No.7-college is examined as D.W.1 in the suit wherein D.W.1 has deposed by leading rebuttal evidence and filed examination-in-chief of affidavit evidence and on perusal of evidence of D.W.1, wherein D.W.1 stated that plaintiff herein got admitted himself in defendant No.7 college by filling admission form to First P.U.C Course vide application form No.6753, wherein plaintiff has produced provisional marks card, caste certificate and Transfer certificate issued to him by 6th defendant Institution and the same was signed by plaintiff as well as his mother B.Krishnamma and plaintiff was admitted to defendant No.7institution after careful examination of documents produced by him and as per register of admission maintained by defendant No.7, name of the plaintiff's mother is recorded as Smt. Krishnamma and not Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma and as per instructions given by the plaintiff in the admission application, defendant No.7 got admitted the plaintiff to first P.U. course for 27 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 the year 2003-04 and it is also given in the application form that in case any false information is given, the admission will be refused and as such application form signed by the plaintiff as well as his mother Smt. Krishnamma submitted to defendant No.7 and as such at this stage, plaintiff cannot state that the particulars given in the admission form disclosing the name of Smt. Krishnamma wrongly by oversight and on the contrary same was verified by the plaintiff and also P.W.2 Smt. Krishnamma and D.W.1 made reference regarding confrontation of Ex.D.1 ie., application form dated: 22/5/2003 and P.W.1admitted this admission form in his cross- examination and P.W.2 also signed the documents and she was confronted with some documents and she has admitted to have signed Ex.D.1 and now plaintiff is claiming that his mother's name is Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma and not Smt. Krishnamma cannot be accepted. Accordingly, on the basis of declaration made by the plaintiff, unless it is substantiated by producing birth certificate issued by Municipal authorities or from the Nursing Home/Hospital, where plaintiff was born and if no such documents are produced, then the only way to determine is by subjecting the parties to D.N.A test and it is compulsory for the hospital authorities where child was born to inform the particulars about such birth calculating the date, time and person giving birth to the child, wherein plaintiff has failed to provide these 28 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 information/particulars s to whether he was born and as to why birth certificate is not forthcoming. Hence, D.W.1 on these averments of affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief in the above suit and D.W.1 identified Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 and also produced Ex.D.3 original Transfer certificate received from defendant No.6 marked at Ex.D.3. Hence, D.W.1 relying upon Ex.D.1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the suit.
21. Counsel for plaintiff cross-examined to D.W.1, wherein she admits that she is working as Principal in defendant No.7 college since June-2012 and D.W.1 admits that the admission of the student in defendant No.7 college will be the made on the basis of particulars furnished by student if that student came on transfer by obtaining transfer certificate and they used to admit the student on the basis of the particulars shown in the Transfer certificate issued by the previous school in favour of the student and D.W.1 admits that plaintiff in the application form has mentioned the name of his mother as Krishnamma and also made declaration in this regard. But, D.W.1 admits that she do not know personally who is the mother of plaintiff and she has replied to Legal notice caused by the plaintiff and in that reply notice she has made reference in respect of Government circular issued by Director of Public Instructions dated: 2/5/2000 and D.W.1 denied that in case plaintiff got rectified his mother's name in the school records of defendant No.7, no hardship will be 29 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 caused to the said college and D.W.1 admits that she has no impediment to produce the original transfer certificate given by the plaintiff at the time of admission and D.W.1 undertakes to produce original transfer certificate in the suit.
22. Thereafter , D.W.1 was recalled on 14/8/2015 and examined further, wherein D.W.1 produced original transfer certificate in respect of plaintiff which is marked at Ex.D.3 and D.W.1 admits in further cross-examination directed by plaintiff's counsel admitting that, in Ex.D.3, there is no mention of mother's name of plaintiff and she admits that on the basis of Ex.D.3, she got admitted the plaintiff in their college looking to the particulars mentioned in transfer certificate. However, D.W.1volutarily stated that she got admitted the plaintiff in defendant No.7 college on the basis of the documents produced at the time of admission by the student and she further admits that she has no personal knowledge in respect of mother's name of plaintiff. According to the witness in the school records produced by the plaintiff, there is mention of mother's name and D.W.1 admits that she has deposed in her affidavit evidence in para-6 regarding D.N.A test in favour of plaintiff's prayer made before the institution for change of his mother's name and D.W.1 admits that in the reply notice, they have informed the plaintiff to produce relevant documents including original birth extract and D.W.1 confronted with Ex.P.22, wherein she admits that 30 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 defendant No.7 has not informed the plaintiff to produce original birth certificate and in Ex.P.22, they informed the plaintiff to get clearance from Deputy Director of Public Instructions or decree by court. However, D.W.1 denied the suggestion that she has filed false affidavit evidence by giving false evidence in this case.
23. Counsel for the defendant No.9 filed memo on 17/6/2015 stating that the original passport Officer has no oral evidence on behalf of defendant No.9 is concerned and accordingly, in view of this memo, it is taken as no oral evidence of defendant No.9.
24. After scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 and that of D.W.1 and after considering the documents marked through P.W.1, as per Ex.P.1 to 27, wherein plaintiff herein who was born on 14/1/1988 wherein he has studied his S.S.L.C. education in defendant No.6 High School at Bangalore and passed S.S.L.C. examination in the month of May-2003 and obtained marks card on 16/5/2003 and he has passed P.U.C examination from defendant No.7 Institution on 13/9/2005 as per marks card wherein name of plaintiff's mother is shown as B. Krishnamma and by considering Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 marked and produced by defendant No.7, wherein Ex.D.1 is the zerox copy of admission form filed by plaintiff before defendant No.7 on 22/5/2003 wherein it is signed by plaintiff and also P.W.2 ie., B. Krishnamma and considering the particulars filed in the 31 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 first page of Ex.D.1, wherein the name of Krishnamma is shown in column No.13 and occupation shown as housewife. As per column No.10, father's name or guardian name (if father is not alive), it is shown as Govindaraj(late)/ Krishnamma and Ex.D.1 is admission form filled by plaintiff when he was studying first P.U.C immediately after passing S.S.L.C. examination and admittedly, he was aged in between 15-16 years at that time. Plaintiff has stated that he has filled the columns as provided in admission form Ex.D.1 and plaintiff has annexed his provisional marks card of S.S.L.C., caste certificate and transfer certificate issued by defendant No.6 institution at the time of admission to defendant No.7 school. The original application is produced at Ex.D.2. P.W.1 and 2 have admitted Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 by admitting their signatures on Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. But, now it is specific case of the plaintiff that he lost his father when he was 8 months old and he took shelter under his Aunt B.Krishnamma, who is wife of B.Narayana and P.W.2 who has given shelter to him is related to his mother. P.W.2 is sister of his father and P.W.1 deposed that he was brought up by P.W.2 in her house and she has given education and as such P.W.1 stated that through oversight and inadvertence name of his mother is recorded in the admission application form as B. Krishnamma. But, in realty, mother's name of plaintiff is Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma and in this regard plaintiff is examined as 32 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 P.W.1 and also examined his Aunt B.Krishnamma as P.W.2 and further plaintiff got marked his mother Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma as P.W.3, who has deposed before this court on oath and also they have stated their relationship in their affidavit evidence wherein P.W.2 is the wife of A.Narayana and she has produced her original voter ID card to prove her status as per Ex.P.4 and considering this Ex.P.4, wherein P.W.2 has proved that, she is the wife of one A. Narayana and this Election I.D. card is issued by Election commission of India after due enquiry and having evidentiary value and presumption and P.W.3 also identified Ex.P.5, which is also voter I.D card issued by Election Commission of India and Ex.P.5 reveals that P.W.3 is the wife of Govindaraj and P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that he is the son of late Govindaraj. Though plaintiff has not produced original birth certificate obtained from Municiapl authority or from any concerned hospital, but, for that reason, the entire case of the plaintiff cannot be thrown away from consideration and on the contrary, plaintiff has examined himself and also examined his Aunt B.Krishnamma and also examined his mother Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma P.W.3 in support of his case and P.W.2 and 3 have deposed that, plaintiff was born in the hospital at Shivajinagar and the only point in issue to be considered by this court is whether plaintiff proves that, his mother's name is wrongly entered in the school records and the 33 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 rectification sought by the plaintiff deserves to be considered in the suit and plaintiff has given evidence and deposed regarding Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 and it is admitted fact that plaintiff who has filled the admission form submitted to 7th defendant on 22/5/2003 wherein plaintiff has correctly filled column No.10 showing that his father's name as Govindaraj and he died and as such he has given particulars as "Govindaraj(late)and Guardian name is given as Krishnamma"
and there is no serious examination regarding P.W.2 retained the custody of plaintiff and has given education to plaintiff and on the contrary, P.W.1 deposed that he lost his father when he was 8 months baby and this fact stated by P.W.1 cannot be disbelieved, wherein admission form Ex.D.1 discloses that when P.W.1 was admitted to first P.U.C college, by that time, plaintiff's father was not alive. Admittedly, there is mistake appeared in respect of plaintiff's mother's name in the educational records even in the marks card also. However, plaintiff is seeking rectification of his mother's name, wherein P.W.1 to 3 have given their evidence and considering Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 wherein these particulars are filled by plaintiff when he was minor soon after completion of his S.S.L.C. and plaintiff has filled his admission form showing column No.10 as late Govindaraj/ name of his Aunt B.Krishnamma and in the same admission form, plaintiff has filled particulars giving his mother's name as B. Krishnamma and it appears that due to 34 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 ignorance, plaintiff has given name of B. Krishnamma under whom, he was being looked after for his welfare also and education purpose and it is not denied by the defendants that plaintiff has lost his father at his early age. Hence, during his minor age, he has filled admission form Ex.D.1 and 2 particulars wherein he might have filled the particulars under bonafide belief that he was being looked after by his guardian who is his Aunt B.Krishnamma and considering evidence of P.W.1 to 3 and Ex.D.1 and 2 wherein probable consequences can be drawn by presumption that plaintiff who was minor, aged about 15 years, might have filled this information in the original admission form by disclosing his mother's name as Krishnamma and this act of plaintiff appears to be of bonafide belief and through inadvertence and oversight wherein, plaintiff now has been examined himself and also further examined his Aunt B.Krishnamma and mother Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma before the court wherein P.W.2 and 3 have given evidence admitting their status and considering Ex.P.4 and 5, which are having presumptive value as Ex.P.4 and 5 are public documents and hence, I hold that plaintiff has proved that his mother's name is Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma and name of B. Krishnamma is wrongly mentioned in the school documents and marks etc., and accordingly, case of the plaintiff deserves to be accepted. Wherein P.W.1 to 3 have given trustworthy evidence and their 35 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 credence is not testified by defendants in the cross- examination. On the contrary, P.W.1 to 3 have given natural evidence and plaintiff has proved issue No.1 and 2 as against defendants.
25. Additional.Issue No.1:- This issue has been framed on 16/10/15 in view of specific contention by defendant No.7 and 9 in their written statement. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted his arguments in respect of this issue of limitation contending that, plaintiff was minor who has filled information, when he took admission in the college of defendant No.7 by filling information when he took admission Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 and on the basis of this information, P.W.1 got admission to first P.U.C and he continued his education on the basis of said information and now plaintiff obtained B.E., degree and serving in private concern and noticed the mistake regarding his mother's name and caused notice dated: 26/7/2013 and has filed this suit for declaration and injunction. Defendant No.7 filed written arguments and in para-7.2 of this written arguments defendant No.7 raised a plea of limitation contending that plaintiff is the signatory of Ex.D.1 and he came to the knowledge of mistake in respect of his mother's name on 22/5/2003. Hence, this suit is barred by time. But, after considering the arguments of counsel for plaintiff and defendant 7 in respect of limitation wherein facts of this case are very specific wherein plaintiff P.W.1 deposed that he lost 36 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 his father when he was aged about 8 months baby and thereafter he was being brought up by his Aunt B.Krishnamma P.W.2 and it is the fact that P.W.2 has signed the admission form as per Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 who was looked after plaintiff. Hence, the mistake one crept in the educational records is in respect of plaintiff's mother's name and now plaintiff has proved that B. Krishnamma is related to him and she is the wife of A. Narayana and aunt of plaintiff. But, plaintiff's mother's name is Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma and she is the wife of late Govindaraj and once this relationship is established by the plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of den and mandatory injunction. Otherwise, the mistake will be crept-in as it is without rectification, wherein plaintiff will suffer loss and also injury and complication will arise for the plaintiff. Hence, this mistake deserves to be rectified in the school records and plaintiff has approached this court for seeking necessary reliefs in order to correct the mistake which had crept in through oversight and bonafide reasons and plaintiff ought to have filed this suit immediately after completion of his education after attaining majority and even during his minority, the guardian ought to have filed this suit for declaration, but, plaintiff who was in the custody of his Aunt B.Krishnamma, P.W.2, she has not filed any suit to rectify the mistake and only when plaintiff after completion of his education, now noticed this mistake appearing in the 37 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 school records. Hence, the court should not apply the technical clause in respect of limitation in rejecting the claim of plaintiff, wherein the mistake crept in the records by plaintiff is appears to be bonafide and it is by oversight and inadvertence. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and this mistake has to be corrected by grant of decree as prayed by the plaintiff and as such court should not too technical to apply pedantic approach in applying limitation in denying the relief. But, on the contrary, whenever the question of limitation comes before the court, wherein Apex court and other Hon'ble High Courts have held that courts should construe the plea of limitation liberally in order to grant the relief to the parties instead of denying the relief on technical grounds. Hence, in the present case, plaintiff has made out cause of action and also issued mandatory notice on 26/7/2013 and some of the defendants have replied the Legal notice and directed the plaintiff to obtain decree from civil court and then only necessary corrections can be made and it is also fact that, there is Government circular/notification dated: 2/5/2000 issued by Commissioner , Department of Education, wherein it is mandatory to obtain court decree in order to correct the name in educational records date of birth etc., and as such plaintiff has approached this court seeking the said relief by way of suit and if plaintiff is not granted relief as prayed in the suit, wherein plaintiff will be put to great 38 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 hardship and much injury caused to him if the said mistake is continued if relief is not granted. On the contrary, if plaintiff is granted that relief, defendant No.7 will not be put to any hardship or loss. On the contrary, mistake which has crept in the educational records of the plaintiff needs to be corrected by interference of this court and as such question of limitation is not criteria and as such additional issue No.1 is answered in negative against defendant No.7 and 9.
26. Issue No.3:-plaintiff has filed this suit against defendant No.1 to 9. But, there is no specific relief prayed against defendant No.9 and it is also not pleaded by the plaintiff that he has obtained passport from defendant No.9 and plaintiff has not produced any document of passport obtained from defendant No.9 and counsel for defendant No.9 submits that in order to obtain passport, one has to file application with all other documents as prescribed by defendant No.9, which is competent authority for issuance of passport. Hence, in this case, plaintiff has not prayed any relief against defendant No.9 and also not produced any document issued by defendant No.9. Hence, suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed against defendant No.9 and plaintiff has proved his case by proving issue No.1 and 2 and as such he is entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction against defendant 39 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 No.1 to 8 only. Hence, with these observations, issue No.3 is answered partly in affirmative and partly in negative.
27. Issue No.4:- In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 3 and additional issue No.1, suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed only against defendant No.1 to 8 without any order as to costs and suit against defendant No.9 deserves to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed only against defendant No.1 to 8 and suit against defendant No.9 is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
It is further ordered and declared that
plaintiff's mother name is Bhagyalakshmi @
Bhagyalakshmamma and it is directed to
defendants by grant of mandatory injunction relief directing them to rectify the school records/educational records of plaintiff by deleting the existing name of plaintiff's Aunt Smt. B.Krishnamma and to substitute the name of plaintiff's mother as declared by this court as Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmamma after 40 O.S.No.7396 of 2013 plaintiff producing certified copy of judgment and decree of this court.
Draw decree accordingly.
{Dictated to the Judgment-Writer transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of December 2015.} (S.V.KULKARNI) XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXUERE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:-
P.W.1 Sri. Yadav G.J
P.W.2 Smt.B. Krishnamma
P.W.3: Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Smt.
Bhagyalakshamamma
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 SSLC Marks card dated 16.5.2003 of
plaintiff
Ex.P.2 Original PUC Marks card issued on
13.5.2005 from defendant No.7
school/college,
Ex.P.3 B.E. degree certificate issued by defendant
No.5 on 7.6.2010 in E & C branch,
Ex.P.4 Election ID card of aunt of plaintiff namely
41 O.S.No.7396 of 2013
Smt. Krishnamma
Ex.P.5: Election ID card of mother of plaintiff
namely Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ Smt.
Bhagyalakshamamma
Ex.P.6: Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P.7 to 15 9 postal receipts
Ex.P.16 to 21 6 postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.22: Reply of defendant No.7
Ex.P.23 Reply of defendant No.4
Ex.P.24 Reply of defendant No.5
Ex.P.25 to 27: 3 complaint settled replies
List of witnesses examined for defendant/s:
D.W.1 Smt. Sunitha.R List of documents exhibited for Defendants :-
Ex.D.1: Xerox copy of admission application Ex.D.2: Application Ex.D.3: T.C XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY 42 O.S.No.7396 of 2013