Bangalore District Court
Soumya Banerjee vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2015
(C.R.P. 67) Govt. Of Karnataka
Form No.9
(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH.NO.12)
PRESENT : SRI MANJUNATH NAYAK,
B.A.L.,LL.B.,
XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
DATED: 1st DECEMBER, 2015
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.3246/2014
********
PLAINTIFF: Soumya Banerjee, Minor,
S/o Mrinal Kanthi Banerjee,
Rep. by his father and
Natural guardian
Sri Mrinal Kanthi Banerjee,
R/at No.32/9, 1st Main Road,
Maruthi Extension,
Opp: Malleshwaram Railway
Station, Bangalore - 560 021.
(By Sri M. Maheshwarappa, Advocate)
Vs -
DEFENDANTS: 1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Education Department,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.
2 O.S.No.3246/2014
2. The Deputy Director of Public
Instructions, Education Department,
Bangalore North District,
K.G. Road, Bangalore-560 009.
3. The Principal,
B.P. Indian Public School,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003.
(By Addl. District Govt. Pleader)
*****
Date of institution of the suit 24-04-2014
Nature of the suit Declaration & Injunction
Date of the commencement 01-10-2015
of recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 01-12-2015
was pronounced
Total duration Year Month Days
01 07 07
******
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit to declare his name as Soham Banerjee, instead of Soumya Banerjee and to rectify the school records accordingly.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint, is as follows:
The plaintiff is now studying in the 6th standard in defendant No.3 school and in his school records, his name is entered as Soumya Banerjee. The name Soumya Banerjee looks like a name of a female, due to which, the plaintiff is facing problem. Therefore, plaintiff wants to change his name as 3 O.S.No.3246/2014 Soham Banerjee instead of Soumya Banerjee. The plaintiff requested the defendants to change his name in his school records. But, the defendants failed to change the school records. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 16-11-2012 calling upon the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff in his school records. The defendants have given a reply that without the decree from the civil Court, they cannot change the name of the plaintiff in his school records. Therefore, plaintiff constrained to file this suit. On these grounds, plaintiff claimed a decree for declaration and mandatory injunction in the above terms.
3. In response to the summons issued by this Court, defendants appeared before this Court through their counsel, filed the written statement and contended that the suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. The defendants denied all the plaint averments and further contended that the suit is filed after lapse of many years. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On these grounds, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed:
4 O.S.No.3246/2014
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that his correct name is Soham Benerjee?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that his name is wrongly entered has Soumya Banerjee?
3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entail for the decree claimed in the suit?
5. What Order or Decree?
5. To prove the above issues and to substantiate his contentions, father and natural guardian of the minor plaintiff examined before this Court as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 6 documents. The defendants did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence on their behalf.
6. I have heard the arguments.
7. By considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and also the arguments canvassed by them, I answer the above issues in the following, because of my below-discussed reasons:
ISSUE NO.1 : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ISSUE NO.2 : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE NO.3 : IN THE NEGATIVE.
ISSUE NO.4 : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ISSUE NO.5 : AS PER FINAL ORDER.
5 O.S.No.3246/2014
REASONS
ISSUE No.1 & 2:-
8. To avoid the repetition of my discussions on facts, I have taken these issues together for determination. The father and guardian of the minor plaintiff, who was examined before this Court as PW.1, has deposed that the plaintiff is studying in the defendant No.3 school and in his school records, his name was entered as Soumya Banerjee. PW.1 further deposed that the name Soumya Banerjee is like a name of a female, due to which, plaintiff is facing problem. PW.1 further deposed that they want to change the name of the plaintiff as Soham Banerjee. PW.1 further deposed that, in spite of request and issuance of legal notice, defendants failed to change the name of the plaintiff in his school records, which made the plaintiff to file the present suit.
9. The plaintiff produced the application given to the defendant No.3 school as per Ex.P-1. The legal notice issued to the defendants, before filing the suit, is marked as per Ex.P-2. The postal acknowledgment evidencing the service of legal notice were marked as per Exs.P-3 to 5. The endorsement given by the defendant is marked as per Ex.P-6.
6 O.S.No.3246/2014
10. The defendants have not let in any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
11. It is the specific case made out by the plaintiff that, in his school records, his name is entered as Soumya Banerjee and it looks like a name of a female, due to which the plaintiff is facing problems. Therefore, plaintiff wants to change his name as Soham Banerjee instead of Soumya Banerjee. Though the defendants have filed written statement and cross-examined PW.1, no material aspects were throw out from the cross- examination of PW.1 to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 and also plaint averments. It is evident from Ex.P-6 that the defendants have shown their inability to rectify the school records. The plaintiff is still a minor as he is studying in the 6th standard. Therefore, there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in changing his name. Moreover, since the plaintiff is a minor, question of delay or limitation in filing the suit would not arise. It appears, name of the plaintiff entered as Soumya Banerjee in school records is also because of pronunciation of names in the Bengali accent since the plaintiff and his family members were Bengalis.
7 O.S.No.3246/2014
12. As per the unreported decisions of our High Court in RFA No.947/2013 dated 10-12-2013 (Srinidhi vs. Government of Karnataka and others), RFA No.1044/2009 dated 02-01-2013 (Hucheshwara S. Mali vs. Head Master and others) and RFA No.1994/2013 dated 25-02-2014 (Ms. Shruthi Yellamma vs. Regional Passport Officer), suit for change of name is maintainable before the Civil Court, as there is no other provisions or procedures provided for change of names in the school records. The plaintiff is not an employee in any Government department or any agency. There is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in seeking the relief to change his name in his school records. Therefore, entry of the name of the plaintiff as Soumya Banerjee in his school records is wrong entry, which has to be rectified. Therefore, I answer the issue Nos.1 & 2 in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.3:-
12. This issue is regarding suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Though the defendants contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, they failed to say who are the necessary parties to this suit, apart from the defendants already on record. The plaintiff is studying in 8 O.S.No.3246/2014 defendant No.3 school. Accordingly plaintiff made principal of the said school and also the education department as a party to this suit. The plaintiff has also made the State Government as a party, as defendant No.1, which is a mandatory requirement to file the suit against the officials of the Government. Apart from these defendants, none other are the necessary parties to this suit. Therefore, one cannot say that the suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties. Hence, I answer the issue No.3 in the Negative.
ISSUE No.4:-
13. In view of my findings on the above issues, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for declaration and mandatory injunction as claimed by him. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO. 5:-
14. In view of my findings on the above issues, the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be decreed. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel it is just and proper to direct both the parties to bear their respective costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:- 9 O.S.No.3246/2014
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in the following terms:
It is declared that the name of the plaintiff is Soham Banerjee.
Consequently, defendants are hereby directed to enter the name of the plaintiff as Soham Banerjee, instead of Soumya Banerjee, in all his school records.
I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
******* (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, the transcript corrected by me, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 1st day of December 2015).
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
()()()()()()() ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 Mrinal Kanthi Baneerjee LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P-1 Application
Ex.P-2 Legal notice.
Exs.P-3 to 5 Postal acknowledgments.
Ex.P-7 Endorsement
10 O.S.No.3246/2014
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:-
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:-
- NIL -
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
11 O.S.No.3246/2014 (Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate judgment) ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in the following terms: It is declared that the name of the plaintiff is Soham Banerjee. Consequently, defendants are hereby directed to enter the name of the plaintiff as Soham Banerjee, instead of Soumya Banerjee, in all his school records. I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs. Draw decree accordingly. (MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU 12 O.S.No.3246/2014 13 O.S.No.3246/2014