Bangalore District Court
Smt. Mukthamba B.S. Aged 29 Years vs State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 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 THE XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH.NO.12)
PRESENT : SRI MANJUNATH NAYAK,
B.A.L.,LL.B.,
XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
DATED: 14TH OCTOBER, 2015.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.7775/2014
*****
PLAINTIFF: Smt. Mukthamba B.S. Aged 29 years,
D/o Shivakumaraiah C.S.
R/a No.11/3, 21st Main, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
(By Sri C. Prakash, Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANTS: 1. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Secretary,
Karnataka Secondary
Examination Board,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003.
2 O.S.No.7775/2014
3. The Director,
Department of Pre-University
Education, 18th Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 003.
4. The Head Master,
Udaya Kannada Higher
Primary School,
R.P.C. Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
5. The Head Master,
Udaya Kannada Medium High School,
R.P.C. Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
(Placed exparte)
*****
Date of institution of the suit 14-10-2014
Nature of the suit: DECLARATION & INJUNCTION.
Date of the commencement 22-09-2015
of recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 14-10-2015
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 00 00
*******
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit claiming the decree to declare her name as C.S. Muktha and directing the defendants to enter her name as C.S. Muktha in her official records.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint, is as follows:
3 O.S.No.7775/2014
The plaintiff is the daughter of Smt. C.S. Susheela and Sri C.S. Shivakumariah and she was born on 24-06-1985. IN her school records plaintiff's name is entered as Mukthamba B.S. The plaintiff intends to be referred and called by name C.S. Muktha instead of Mukthamba B.S. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants calling upon them to enter her name as C.S. Muktha instead of Mukthamba B.S. in her school records and official records. But, the defendants have refused to make the rectification. Therefore, plaintiff constrained to file this suit. On these grounds, plaintiff claimed decree for declaration and mandatory injunction in the above terms.
3. In spite of service of suit summons, defendants failed to appear before this court and they placed exparte.
4. To prove and substantiate his case, plaintiff examined before this Court as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 10 documents.
5. I have heard the arguments.
6. The points that arose for my consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the decree of declaration and injunction as prayed in this suit?
2. What Order or decree?4 O.S.No.7775/2014
7. My answer for the above points in the following, because of my below-discussed reasons:
POINT NO.1 : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
POINT NO.2 : AS PER FINAL ORDER.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
8. The plaintiff, who was examined before this Court as PW.1, has reiterated the plaint averments in her examination in- chief affidavit and deposed that she was born on 24-06-1985 to her parents by name C.S. Susheela and C.S. Shivakumariah and in her school records, her name was entered as Mukthamba B.S. PW.1 further deposed that she intend to be called by name C.S. Muktha instead of Mukthamba B.S. and defendants have refused to rectify her school records, in spite of issuing legal notice to them, which made her to file the present suit.
9. The plaintiff produced her SSLC Marks card as per Ex.P-
1. The PUC marks card of the plaintiff is marked as per Ex.P-2. The Copy of legal notice addressed to the defendants is marked as per Ex.P-3. The Postal acknowledgments were marked as per Ex.P-8. The endorsement given by the defendants is marked as per Ex.P-8. The letter issued to the Postal department is marked as per Ex.P-9. The postal receipt is marked as per Ex.P-10. 5 O.S.No.7775/2014
10. As I said earlier, in spite of service of summons upon the defendants, they failed to appear before this Court. Hence, they placed exparte. Due to the non-appearance of the defendants and written statement being not filed, plaint averments remained unchallenged. PW.1 was not cross- examined. Therefore, oral testimony of PW.1 and documents produced by the plaintiff as per Exs.P-1 to P-10 remained unchallenged. Absolutely there is not rebuttal or contradictory evidence to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff.
11. The plaintiff filed this suit to change her name as C.S. Muktha instead of Mukthamba B.S. The plaintiff produced her school records like SSLC Marks card and PUC marks card as per Exs.P-1 & 2, which shows that in the school records, her name is entered as Mukthamba B.S. Now the plaintiff wants that she has to be called by name C.S. Muktha. Therefore, she filed the present suit. Before filing this suit the plaintiff issued a legal notice as per Ex.P-3 calling upon the defendants to rectify the school records in changing her name. It is evident from Ex.P-8 that the defendant No.3 has given reply to the legal notice that they will rectify the PUC marks cards, if the SSLC Marks card of the plaintiff is rectified in changing her name. Now as per the Government circular, any entries in the school records cannot be 6 O.S.No.7775/2014 changed without the decree from the Civil Court. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
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), the 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 has complied Sec.80 of CPC before the institution of this suit. The plaintiff is not intended to make any unlawful gain or there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit seeking change of her name. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as claimed in this suit. Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
POINT NO. 2:-
13. In view of my findings on the above points, suit filed by the plaintiff is deserves to be decreed. Considering the facts and circumstances this case, I feel both the parties are to be directed 7 O.S.No.7775/2014 to bear their respective costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in the following terms.
It is declared that the name of the plaintiff is C.S. Muktha.
Consequently, defendants are hereby directed to enter the name of the plaintiff as C.S. Muktha in all her school records in place of Mukthamba B.S. 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 14th day of October,2015).
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
()()()()()() ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 Mukthamba B.S. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P-1 SSLC marks card
8 O.S.No.7775/2014
Ex.P-2 PUC marks card
Ex.P-3 Legal notice
Ex.P-4 to 7 Postal acknowledgments. Ex.P-8 Endorsement by defendants.
Ex.P-9 Letter Ex.P-10 Postal receipt
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:-
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:-
- NIL -
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.9 O.S.No.7775/2014
(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 C.S. Muktha.
Consequently, defendants are hereby directed to enter the name of the plaintiff as C.S. Muktha in all her school records in place of Mukthamba B.S. I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.10 O.S.No.7775/2014