Bangalore District Court
) Mr.Ashok Kumar.R vs ) The Government Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2022
KABC010181962021
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 11th day of March 2022
PRESENT: Sri.Rama Naik, B.Com., LL.B.,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No.4666/2021
PLAINTIFFS 1) MR.ASHOK KUMAR.R
Aged about 47 years
S/o.late Sri.S.M.ramachandra
2) SMT.GEETHA.C.H
Aged about 39 years
W/o.Sri.Ashok Kumar.R
Both are R/at No.11, 1st Main
4th Cross, Opp: BDA Complex
RHCS Layout
Annapoorneshwari Nagara
Viswaneedam Post, Bengaluru North
Bengaluru -560 091.
OS.4666/2021
2
Who are acting on behalf of their minor son
CHI.PREETHAM.A Now Chi.CHIRRANT.A
[By Pleader Sri.B.N.Shivakumar Swamy ]
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1) THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Rept. By The Chief Secretariat
vikasa Soudha
B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru -560 001.
[By Pleader Smt.Lohitheshwari -
III ADGP]
2) THE COMMISSIONER
Registrar of Birth & Death
Government of Karnataka
B.B.M.P., Bengaluru -560 020.
[By Pleader Sri.Prakash]
3) DEPUTY CIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION
Bengaluru Urban District
K.G.Road, Bengaluru -560 009.
[By Pleader Smt.Lohitheshwari -
III ADGP]
4) THE PRINCIPAL
Sri Vani Education Centre
Magadi Road, Machohalli
Bengaluru -560 055.
5) UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY
OF INDIA
Government of India
Bangla Sahib Road
Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market
New Delhi - 110 001.
Rept. by Authorized Signatory/Secretary
[Exparte]
OS.4666/2021
3
Date of Institution of the suit : 31.08.2021
Nature of the Suit : Declaration &
Injunction
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 22.12.2021
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 11.03.2022
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : -- 06 10
(RAMA NAIK)
VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
Suit is filed by Plaintiffs to declare their son's name as 'CHIRRANT.A' and to direct Defendants to incorporate the same in the records maintained by them.
OS.4666/2021 4
2) In brief, Plaintiffs' case is that from the wed- lock of Plaintiffs, a male child was born to them on 08.07.2007, which came to be registered in Defendant No.2 Office. At the time of registration of birth of their son, he was named as 'Preetham.A'. He was admitted to Defendant No.4 school and now, he is studying 9th standard.
3) It is stated that Plaintiffs' son has got Aadhaar card in his name.
4) It is stated that, in the month of December 2019, when Plaintiffs took their son to the astrologer, they were told that name by which their son was called, does not suit him, and therefore, they approached Defendants and even issued legal notice dated 17.01.2020. The Defendants insisted to produce necessary order from the Court. Hence, pray for decree.
OS.4666/2021 5
5) Defendants No.1 and 3 marked appearance through III Additional District Government Pleader [III ADGP]. Defendant No.2 entered its appearance through its advocate. Defendants No.4 and 5 did choose not to appear despite service of summons. Hence, they were placed ex parte.
6) Defendants No.1 and 3, 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.
7) It is further stated that, as per Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision for change of name of student in school records.
8) It is also stated that there is no cause of action to file the present suit. Hence, pray for dismissal of suit.
OS.4666/2021 6
9) Defendant No.2, in its written statement, states that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
10) It is stated that service of statutory notice before institution of the suit shall be proved by Plaintiffs before granting relief to Plaintiffs.
11) It is further stated that mandatory provisions of law contained in Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] has not been complied with by Plaintiffs.
12) It is also stated that there is no cause of action to file the present suit by Plaintiffs. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
13) Following issues have been framed framed by this Court :
1) Do Plaintiffs prove that they have changed the name of their son OS.4666/2021 7 as "Chirrant A" instead of "Preetham A"?
2) Do Defendnats No.1 and 3 prove that, in view of Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the name of student in school records?
3) Do Defendants No.1 and 3 prove that suit filed by Plaintiff is barred by limitation?
4) Does Defendant No.2 proe that suit filed by Plaintiff is bad for non-joindr of necessary parties ?
5) Does Defendant No.2 prove that suit is not maintainable in view of non-compliance of provisions of Order 32 Rule 1 of CPC?
6) Does Defendant No.2 prove that no statutory notice has been served to Defendant No.2 ?
7) Doe Defendnats No.1 to 3 prove that there is no cause of action to file this suit ?
8) What Order or Decree?
14) Plaintiff No.1 has got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 in support of Plaintiffs' case. Defendants No.1 to 3 have chosen not to lead their evidence.
OS.4666/2021 8
15) Heard learned counsel for Plaintiffs as well as learned III ADGP for Defendants No.1 and 3 and counsel for Defendant No.2. Perused the records.
16) 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 - In Negative Issue No.7 - In Negative Issue No.8 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS 17) Issue No.2 : Defendants No.1 and 3 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.
OS.4666/2021 9
18) In Gunda Naika P.S. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others [RFA No.322/2013 (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".
19) In Smt.Dorasanamma Vs. State of Karnataka (RFA No.284/2014 (DEC) decided on 02.09.2016), Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was OS.4666/2021 10 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 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 OS.4666/2021 11 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)
20) 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.
21) Further, Circular No.ED100DTB 2014 dated 26-10-2015 issued by the Government of Karnataka deals with the procedures for correction of school records It 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 OS.4666/2021 12 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.
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 OS.4666/2021 13 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 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. "
22) 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.
OS.4666/2021 14 In that view, there is no significance in the contention of Defendants No.1 and 3 that there is no provision to change the name of the student in school records. Accordingly, I answer the above issue in the negative.
23) Issue No.3 : Defendants No.1 and 3 further contend that suit has been filed after a lapse of considerable delay, and hence, same is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
24) Plaintiffs, in the plaint, plead that, in the month of December 2019, when they took their son to astrologer, they were told that their son's name does not suit him. It is pleaded that, for better future of their son, their elders advised them to follow the instructions of the astrologer and accordingly, they issued legal notice to Defendants to change the school records of their son relating to his name and to enter the same in his birth records.
OS.4666/2021 15 It is further pleaded that, despite service of notice, the same was not complied with by Defendants.
25) It may be noticed that nothing has been cross examined to PW.1 to the effect that how the suit of Plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Except bare contention in written statement, there are no evidence to say that suit is barred by limitation.
26) 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 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 OS.4666/2021 16 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. ......."
27) Plaintiff's suit being one for declaration with a consequential relief of direction to Defendants to correct the records of Plaintiff relating to their son's 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 astrologer's advise, which was given to them in December, 2019. In that view, there is no reason to hold that Plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, I answer the above Issue in the Negative.
OS.4666/2021 17
28) Issue No.4 : Defendants No.1 to 3 have taken contention that suit of Plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
29) Cause-title of plaint makes it clear that Plaintiffs have made all the necessary parties as parties to suit including the State Government. It is not stated in their pleadings as to who are the necessary parties to be made as parties to the suit. Moreover, there is no cross examination to the said effect. That being the case, there is no reason to contend that suit of Plaintiffs fail for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, I answer the above issue in the negative.
30) Issue No.5 : It is the contention of Defendant No.2 that suit ought to have been instituted in the name of minor by next friend as mandated under Order XXXII of CPC.
OS.4666/2021 18
31) Cause-title of plaint goes to show that Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 being the parents of their minor son, have filed the present suit representing their minor son.
32) Order XXXII Rule 1 of CPC deals with minor to sue by next friend. It states that every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who in such suit shall be called the next friend of the minor.
33) Order XXXII Rule 2 of CPC states that where suit is instituted without next friend, plaint to be taken off the file.
34) In the instant case, of course, cause-title of plaint does not mention the name of minor as Plaintiff. Instead, his parents are shown as Plaintiffs No.1 and 2. At the same time, cause-title makes it clear that Plaintiffs are representing their minor son OS.4666/2021 19 by stating that 'who are acting on behalf of their minor son, Chi.Preetham A., now Chi.Chirrant A'. Though minor has not been specifically named as Plaintiff in the present suit, cause-title of plaint makes it clear that Plaintiffs are representing their minor son in the present suit. Merely the fact that minor is not specifically named as Plaintiff in the cause-title, said irregularity cannot be considered as non-compliance of Order XXXII Rule 1 of CPC and same does not dis-entitle Plaintiffs to claim the relief which they entitle. In that view, there finds no merit in the contention of Defendant No.2. Accordingly, I answer the above issue.
35) Issue No.6 : It is the contention of Defendant No.2 that service of statutory notice has to be proved by Plaintiffs. It may be noticed that Plaintiffs have produced the copy of legal notice dated 17.01.2020 issued by them to Defendants stating the names and addresses of Plaintiffs, cause OS.4666/2021 20 of action and relief to be claimed. Same has been marked as Ex.P.4. Addressing of Ex.P.4 is evidenced by Exs.P.5 to P.9, postal receipts. Ex.P.11, acknowledgement, makes it abundantly clear that notice at Ex.P.4 was received by Defendant No.2. Moreover, there is no cross examination to PW.1 to buttress the contention of Defendant No.2. Thus, in the presence of documentary evidence, which has not be controverted by Defendant No.2, there is no scope to hold that no notice at Ex.P.4 has been served to Defendant No.2. In that view, I answer the above issue in the negative.
36) Issues No.1 and 7 : Plaintiffs seek declaration of their son's name as 'CHIRRANT. A' and for consequent correction in the records maintained by Defendants.
37) Plaintiff No.1, who is the father of minor, has deposed as PW.1 reiterating the facts stated in the OS.4666/2021 21 plaint. Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs are at Exs.P.1 to P.16.
38) Ex.P.1 is birth certificate, wherein the name of the child is left blank. Child is shown to have born on 08.07.2007 at 'Shaker Nursing Home', Malleshwaram which has been pleaded in plaint. Child's parents' names are mentioned as Sri.R.Ashok Kumar and Smt.C.H. Geetha. They are Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 in the present suit. These factual aspects of the matter make it clear that birth certificate belongs to the son of Plaintiffs. In addition to that, there is no denial on the part of Defendant No.2 that birth certificate, which Plaintiffs rely upon does not belong to Plaintiffs' son.
39) Ex.P.2 is Study Certificate issued by Defendant No.5 School, which goes to show that OS.4666/2021 22 Plaintiffs' son Chi.Preetham.A is studying 9th standard in Defendant No.5 School.
40) Ex.P.3 is Aadhaar card of Plaintiffs' son. It mentions his name as 'Preetham A'.
41) Exs.P.15 and P.16 are Aaadhar cards of Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 respectively.
42) Above documents make it clear that Plaintiffs' son's name is 'Preetham A' and same has been entered in his school records. It is further clear that their son's date of birth has been entered in the office of Defendant No.2.
43) In the instant suit, Plaintiffs seek the declaration of their son's name as 'CHIRRANT. A' and consequent corrections in the school records of their son and in the records of Defendant No.2 by seeking specific prayer. Of course, there are no OS.4666/2021 23 specific pleadings in plaint that, as per the advise of astrologer, they have changed the name of their son as 'Chirrant. A'. It is also true that there are no documents to the effect that Plaintiffs have changed their son's name as 'Chirrant. A'. Be that as it may. When plaint is read in its entirety along with prayer, certainly, intention of Plaintiffs can be inferred that they wish to change the name of their minor son as 'Chirrant.A' instead of 'Preetham.A'. Sworn testimony of PW.1 by way of examination-in- chief reiterates the intention of Plaintiffs to change the name of their son as 'Chirrant.A'.
44) Circular No.ED100DTB 2014 dated 26-10- 2015 (supra) make it abundantly clear that name of the student, who is studying 1st to 10th standard could have been changed by the school authority by taking self affidavit of the parents of the child. However, despite service of notice, they chose not to act upon in accordance with Circular. In that OS.4666/2021 24 circumstance, the only option left open to Plaintiffs is to obtain decree from the Civil Court. In that view, there finds no reason to contend that there is no cause of action for Plaintiffs to file the present suit. Thus, in view of proving the case of Plaintiffs, there would be no impediment to grant the relief as sought for by Plaintiffs; accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.7 in the negative.
45) Issue No.8 : For the foregoing discussion and findings on Issues No.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER (1) Suit filed by Plaintiffs is hereby decreed.
(2) It is hereby declared that
Plaintiffs' son's name is
"CHIRRANT. A".
OS.4666/2021
25
(3) Defendants No.1 to 4 are
hereby directed to effect
necessary changes in all the
educational records and in birth records of Plaintiffs' son by incorporating Plaintiffs' son's name as "CHIRRANT.A".
(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 11th day of March 2022) (RAMA NAIK) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City OS.4666/2021 26 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiffs' side :
P.W.1 - Sri.Ashok Kumar.R, dtd.22.12.2021
(b) Defendants side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiffs' side :
Ex.P.1 Birth Certificate
Ex.P.2 Study Certificate of Chi.Preetham.A issued by
Sri Vani Education Centre
Ex.P.3 Original Aadhaar Card of Chi.Preetham.A
Ex.P.4 Office copy of legal notice dtd.17.01.2020
Ex.P.5
To Postal Receipts
Ex.P.9
Ex.P.10
To Postal Acknowledgments
Ex.P.13
Ex.P.14 Track Consignment
Ex.P.15 Original Aadhaar Card of Sri.Ashok Kumar.R (PW.1) Ex.P.16 Original Aadhaar Card of Smt.Geetha C.H (Plaintiff No.2)
(b) Defendants side : N I L VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City OS.4666/2021 27