Karnataka High Court
Shreenidhi M A vs Government Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
R.F.A.No.947 OF 2013 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
Shreenidhi M.A.
Aged about 15 years
Rep. by his natural guardian, father
Ashok N.Malebennur, Major
Advocate,
R/at No.186, 1st Floor, 68th Cross,
5th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010. ... Appellant
(By Sri S.P.Kulkarni, Advocate)
AND:
1. Government of Karnataka,
Represented by Commissioner,
Public Instructions Department,
Nruputhanga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore - 560 002.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
North Range - 1, 2nd Block,
2
P & T Road, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
4. Head Master/Head Mistress,
Carmel High School,
Basaveshwarnager,
Bangalore - 560 079.
5. Head Master/Head Mistress,
St.Ann's High School,
6th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010. ... Respondents
(By Sri B.P.Radha, GP for R1 to R3:
Sri S.N.Prashanth Chandra, Advocate for R4:
R5- served)
This RFA is filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1
CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2013
passed in OS 7515/2011 on the file of the XL-Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for
declaration and injunction and etc.
This RFA, coming on for admission, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Court of the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, (CCH -
41) in O.S.No.7515/2011.
3
2. The appellant filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that his name be declared as M.Akshaya Ashok in the place of Shreenidhi M.A. He has also sought the direction to the respondents to incorporate his name as M.Akshaya Ashok in the school records. The change of name is sought based on the advice given by the astrologers.
3. The respondent No. 5 remained ex-parte. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appeared, but did not file the written statement.
4. The Trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his name is M.AKSHAYA ASHOK?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed in the plaint?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed in the plaint?
4) What order?4
5. The father of the appellant got himself examined as PW1, marking the documents at Exs. P1 to P4. The Trial Court answered the points against the appellant and dismissed the suit.
6. The Trial Court's reasoning appears to be four folded:
(a) PW1 has not stated as to on what date he approached the astrologer (b) he has not furnished the name of the astrologer
(c) no materials are placed to show that the astrologer ahs advised PW1 to change the name of the appellant (d) PW1 has failed to prove that the appellant's changed name is M.Akshaya Ashok.
7. Sri S.P.Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the respondents have not filed the written statement, the Trial Court ought to have proceeded to pass the sought decree in exercise of the power conferred under Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC. He also brings to my notice that in similar matters, the civil courts have been granting the declaratory relief in the matter of change of name. He seeks leave of the Court to produce the judgment, dated 5 07.09.2010 passed by the Court of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.2650/2010, although the said judgment of the Trial Court has no value of precedent and that therefore it cannot be cited before this Court. He submits, rather modesty, that its production is only to make out a case for consistency in Trial Court's orders.
8. Sri Kulkarni further submits that the change of name was sought for two reasons: (a) The appellant is a boy. Whenever he is being called by the name 'Shrinidhi', his friends tease him, as it sounds like the name of a girl.
(b) The family astrologer has advised that the appellant's name be changed from Shrinidhi to M.Akshaya Ashok. The appellant and his family members, who are firm believers in astrology, want to invoke good luck and good vibration.
9. Sri Kulkarni brings to my notice the Circular, dated 02.05.2000. He submits that as it is in public domain, it can be looked into for the purpose of deciding this appeal even when it is not marked as an exhibit.
6
10. Smt.B.P.Radha, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the appellant has not produced any documents to the satisfaction of the Trial Court that he is entitled to the relief of declaration in the matter of change of name.
11. It is worthwhile to notice that the respondents have not filed the written statement, not cross-examined the father of the appellant and not entered the witness box. Further, they have not argued out the matter. All these things only go to show that they have no tenable resistance to the prayers made by the appellant in the suit.
12. When a party approaches the Trial Court for obtaining the decree for the change of name, it is difficult, if not impossible, to produce the documents in support of the change of name. He can only produce voluminous documents to show as to what is his present name.
13. The respondents are in no position to point out any statutory provision or rule or Government order or circular 7 prescribing the procedure for the change of name. 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.
14. The suit for the change of name cannot be dismissed on the ground that the details of astrological advice are not furnished. Besides, the appellant is not agitating any pre-existing right. The change of name is always for the future.
15. Thus, not finding any good reasons to uphold the judgment and the decree under appeal, I set aside the same. The change of name does not put the respondents or any third party to any prejudice. The change of name may or may not help the appellant (plaintiff). The efficacy of the astrological advice cannot be tested in the courts of law. These are the things which depend upon the belief system of the individuals and the communities to which they belong. 8 The objective verification of the correctness of the astrological advice cannot be insisted for.
16. In the result, I pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside.
(iii) The appellant is permitted to change his name from Shreenidhi M.A. to M.Akshaya Ashok.
(iv) The appellant is directed to publish the change of name in a leading daily, within two weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order.
(v) Thereafter the change of name shall be reflected in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (S.S.L.C.), if, as and when it is issued.
(vi) I.A.No.1/2013 is dismissed as not pressed.
17. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-