Bangalore District Court
Gnaneshwar. M.V vs The Head Master on 13 December, 2022
KABC010092242022 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF V ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT AT
BENGALURU
(CCH.No.13)
Present: Sri. ONKARAPPA.R, B.Sc., LLB
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2022.
O.S.2227/2022
PLAINTIFF :Gnaneshwar. M.V
S/o Vijay.M and Smt. Umadevi,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.805/N,
Ground Floor, 15th Cross,
Near K.R. Road, Jayanagar
7th Block, Banashankari
II Stage, Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru-70.
(By Sri RSM., Advocate)
-Versus-
DEFENDANTS : 1. The Head Master,
Prathibha Bala Mandira,
English Primary School,
(Recognized by the
Government of Karnataka)
Banashankari II Stage,
Bengaluru-70.
2. The Head Master,
Ahalya Bai's High School,
No.9, 18th Main Road,
Banashankari II Stage,
Bengaluru-70.
3. The Principal,
Vijaya PU College,
11th 4th Block,
Jyanagar,
Bengaluru-11.
2
O.S. No.2227/2022
4. The Principal,
Vidya Vikas Institute of
Engineering & Technology,
(Approved by AICTE,
Affiliated to VTU) No.127-128,
Alanahally Post,
Mysore- Bannur Road,
Mysore-28.
5. The Block Education Officer
(BEO) Bengaluru South
Range-1, Shankarapura,
Bengaluru-04.
6. The Deputy Director of
Public Instructions,
Bengaluru South District,
Department of education,
Kalsipalya, Bengaluru-02.
7. The Secretary,
Karnataka Secondary
Education Examination Board,
6th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru-03.
8. The Director,
Pre-university Education,
18th Cross, Sampige Road,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-12.
9. The Registrar,
Visweshvaraiah Technological
University, Belagavi-18.
10. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru-01.
(D.1, 2,4- In person
D.3- Absent
D.5 to 8,10- IV ADGP
D.9- Ex-parte)
3
O.S. No.2227/2022
Date of institution of the Suit : 26/03/2022
Declaration & Mandatory
Nature of the Suit :
injunction.
Date of commencement of recording of 27/09/2022
:
evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 13/12/2022
:
pronounced
Total Duration Year Months Days
:
00 08 17
[ ONKARAPPA.R ]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
-: J U D G E M E N T :-
Suit has filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the
relief of declaration and mandatory injunction.
2. Brief facts are as under:-
That, plaintiff's father name is Vijay.M and mother is
Smt. Umadevi born on 19/11/1998 at Bengaluru. His parents given
him a name as Gnaneshwar.M.V. The plaintiff studied his primary
education at defendant No.1 school and studied SSLC at defendant
No.2 school and studied PUC at defendant No.3 college. The
plaintiff has studied and completed his BE(ME) in the institution of
defendant No.4. The plaintiff's name recorded in all school, college,
registers, documents, ledgers and in all his marks card as
Gnaneshwar.M.V. For the last few years the plaintiff's health and his
education ares not so good as expected in comparing to his earlier
education period. After conciliations with elders and known persons
the plaintiff and his parents recently approached the astrologer
4
O.S. No.2227/2022
regarding the plaintiff's health and education and about his future. At
that time astrologer after considering his horoscope suggested him
to change the plaintiff's name as Karthik.M.V and to use the said
name in all the transactions and business. Now the plaintiff's health
is getting improved and its showing some good significance which is
giving self confidence about his education and career. As such the
plaintiff and his parents considering the above circumstances and
decided to change the plaintiff's name as Karthik.M.V instead of
Gnaneshwar.M.V. It is belief of the plaintiff and his parents about
their own Hindu religion and customary belief and trust. As such the
plaintiff issued legal notice dated 09/12/2021 requesting the
defendants to change the name of the plaintiff in all the school
records, registers, documents and marks card as Karthik.M.V.
Despite receipt of legal notice the defendants did not comply the
same. If the name of change is ordered no inconvenience and
hardship would be caused to any third parties. On the contrary if the
same is not considered the plaintiff and his parents will be put to
great hardship and irreparable loss. Cause of action for the suit
arose on 09/10/2019 when the astrologer suggested to change his
name and on 09/12/2021 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to
the defendants. On these grounds prayed for decreeing the suit.
3. Despite service of suit summons defendant No. 9
remained absent, hence he placed ex-parte as per order sheet
dated 06/07/2022. Though defendant No.1, 2, 4 appeared in
person, but not chosen to filed their written statement. The
defendant No.3 remained absent since from 10/06/2022. Hence,
defendant No.3 also not contested the case either to file written
statement on his side or to cross-examined the P.W. 1.
5
O.S. No.2227/2022
4. The defendant No.5 to 8, 10 appeared through learned IV
ADGP and filed their side written statement, wherein they contended
that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on
facts and the same is deserved to be thrashed at limine.
Allegations made against the defendants are all false, baseless and
the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same. The averments made
in para 2 to 6 of the plaint are all false and not within the knowledge
of these defendants and the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the
same. The other averments that plaintiff has issued the legal notice
to the defendants etc., are not true. The particulars furnished by the
parents of the student during admission to primary school which
were supported by necessary document will be entered in the school
records and the same will be continued and reflected in all other
educational records and there is no fault of the defendants in the
above case. Only after verifying the necessary document and on
the basis of birth certificate of plaintiff his name, date of birth and
parents name etc., were entered in his admission register. Plaintiff
has not made any efforts to change his name in his birth certificate
by filing any suit and if the change of plaintiff's name is ordered in
his educational records it will cause anomaly in plaintiff's other
records. The defendants cannot act to the whims and fancies of the
plaintiff and they are abide by the rules and regulations followed by
the department. Defendants have been unnecessarily dodged in to
the court and made to bear heave litigation expenses. There is no
cause of action for the suit against these defendants and the alleged
one is imaginary. On these grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit
with exemplary cost.
6
O.S. No.2227/2022
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, predecessor in officer
has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that his
correct name is 'KARTHIK.M.V' and not
as ' GNANESHWAR.M.V' ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of declaration and mandatory
injunction as sought for ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit
reliefs as sought for ?
4. What order or decree?
6. In order to prove the case the plaintiff examined himself as
PW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.10. On the
other hand though defendant No. 5 to 8 and 10 have filed their
written statement and challenged the evidence of P.W. 1, defendant
No.5 to 8 and 10 not chosen to led any evidence on their side.
7. Heard argument on both the side. Perused the material
on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: In the affirmative
Issue No.3: In the affirmative
Issue No.4: As per final order for the
following:
7
O.S. No.2227/2022
-: R E A S O N S :-
9. Issue Nos.1 and 2:- Since Issue No.1 and 2
overlapped with each other, that I taken Issue No.1 and 2 for my
common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts.
10. As per thecase of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's father name is
Vijay.M and mother is Smt. Umadevi born on 19/11/1998 at
Bengaluru. His parents given him a name as Gnaneshwar.M.V. The
plaintiff studied his primary education at defendant No.1 school and
studied SSLC at defendant No.2 school and studied PUC at
defendant No.3 college. The plaintiff has studied and completed his
BE(ME) in the institution of defendant No.4. The plaintiff's name
recorded in all school, college, registers, documents, ledgers and in
all his marks card as Gnaneshwar.M.V. For the last few years the
plaintiff's health and his education ares not so good as expected in
comparing to his earlier education period. After conciliations with
elders and known persons the plaintiff and his parents recently
approached the astrologer regarding the plaintiff's health and
education and about his future. At that time astrologer after
considering his horoscope suggested him to change the plaintiff's
name as Karthik.M.V and to use the said name in all the
transactions and business. Now the plaintiff's health is getting
improved and its showing some good significance which is giving
self confidence about his education and career. As such the plaintiff
and his parents considering the above circumstances and decided to
change the plaintiff's name as Karthik.M.V instead of
Gnaneshwar.M.V. It is belief of the plaintiff and his parents about
their own Hindu religion and customary belief and trust. As such the
8
O.S. No.2227/2022
plaintiff issued legal notice dated 09/12/2021 requesting the
defendants to change the name of the plaintiff in all the school
records, registers, documents and marks card as Karthik.M.V.
Despite receipt of legal notice the defendants did not comply the
same. The above all same plaint averments reiterated by the
plaintiff in examination-in-chief when he examined at before the
court as P.W. 1. Further, the plaintiff to substantiate his case he also
got marked as many as 10 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.10 viz., Ex.
P1 is the original letter dated 19/10/2019, Ex. P2 is the notarized
copy of the certificate issued by the Prathibha Bala Mandir, Ex. P3 is
the notarized copy of the birth certificate of P.W. 1, Ex. P4 is the
notarized copy of the Aadhar card of P.W. 1, Ex. P5 is notarized copy
of SSLC marks card of P.W. 1, Ex. P6 is notarized copy of the PUC
marks card of P.W. 1, Ex. P7 is notarized copy of the course
completion certificate issued by Vidya Vikas Institute of Engineering
and Technology of P.W. 1, Ex. P8, 8(a&b) Legal notice dated
09/12/2021 along with postal receipts and acknowledgments, Ex. P9
is reply dated 29/12/2021 issued by the Vishveshwarayya
Technology Center, Ex. P10 is reply dated 11/01/2022 issued by the
Director of Degree college. The same Ex.P2 to P10 documents is
here evidence name of the plaintiff as Gnaneshwara M.V and not
Karthik M.V.
11. On the contrary the defendant No.5 to 8 and 10 have
specifically contended that, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable,
barred by law of limitation, no cause of action and there is no
provision of law to make rectify the name of the plaintiff at all his
educational records. To sort out his defense learned counsel
9
O.S. No.2227/2022
appeared for defendant No.5 to 8 and 10 throughly cross-examined
the P.W. 1. In the cross-examination it is elicited through the mouth
of P.W. 1 that, the plaintiff residing at the addressed mentioned in the
cause title since from last 5 years only. Earlier to that the plaintiff
reside at Bengaluru. His father got admitted the plaintiff in to the
school. He got obtained Ex.P.3 on 18/01/2001. Ex.P.3 placed at
before the school authorities by the plaintiff's father at the time the
plaintiff got admitted to the school. Unequivocally admitted the
suggestion the information available at birth certificate and school
documents pertains to the plaintiff are all one and the same. No
case that the plaintiff filed in sought to change of his name at his
birth certificate. It further elicited that no documents that the plaintiff
placed at before the court to show the name of the plaintiff as
Karthik.M.V. No case filed for rectification of name at the caste
certificate belonging to the plaintiff. At the caste certificate name of
the plaintiff mentioned as Gnaneshwar.M.V. No benefits or
scholarship that the plaintiff got obtained from the government.
Now the plaintiff is in the way of searching the job. Unequivocally
admitted the suggestion that there is no fault on the side of the
defendants to got mutated the name of the plaintiff at his
educational records. No document that he placed at before the
court to show the health condition of the plaintiff. But P.W. 1
voluntarily stated at the advice of the astrologer and numerologist
that the plaintiff want to rectify his name at school records. Denied
the suggestion no notice in writing issued to the 7th defendant.
10
O.S. No.2227/2022
12. From the above all pleading and evidence available on
record, that it make clear that the plaintiff instituted the suit against
all the defendants at the advice and instructions of astrologer and
numerologist. It is true in the cross-examination P.W. 1
unequivocally admitted the suggestion that at no fault of the
defendants the name of the plaintiff in all educational records
mentioned as Gnaneshwar.M.V. Now the question before me that
the answer which elicited through the mouth of P.W. 1 is enough to
decline the relief to the plaintiff as sought in the plaint. It is particular
case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff facing some of health issues. As
the plaintiff went and approached the astrologer and numerologist
and on advice of astrologer and numerologist, the plaintiff want to
rectify his name at all his educational records. True case on record
no fault committed by the defendants while mentioning the name of
the plaintiff as Gnaneshwar.M.V. But, on that score alone the belief
and custom of the plaintiff cannot be questioned and testified. It is
pertinent to note here that there is no case on side of the defendants
that the plaintiff is facing health issues and in the advice of
astrologer and numerologist, the plaintiff got change his name from
Gnaneshwar.M.V. to Karthik.M.V. With this regard, no single
suggestion that the defendants have made to P.W. 1 that the plaintiff
has no health issues and there is no advice of the astrologer and
numerologist, to change the name of the plaintiff. Further, on the
contrary though defendants appeared and contested the case by
way of filing the written statement, neither of the defendants
adduced any oral and documentary evidence at before the court to
disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. If ones the plaintiff failed to got
change his name at his birth certificate and his caste certificate, the
11
O.S. No.2227/2022
same will be looked by such concerned and competent authorities.
Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the defendants since
the plaintiff failed to got change his name at birth certificate and his
caste certificate the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the relief as
sought in the plaint is not holds any water. As such that I am of the
view that the plaintiff got proved her case by corroborating the oral
evidence with the documentary evidence.
13. It is not in dispute that plaintiff is not a government
servant. Though the plaintiff has not examined authors of Ex.P.1 but
in this regard our Hon'ble High Court has observed in RFA
No.322/2013 dated 10/12/2013 (Gunda Naika.P.S Vs. The State of
Karnataka) that there is no impediment to pass the decree in
favour of the plaintiff stating that, the efficacy of the astrological
advice cannot be tested in the courts of law.
14. So, in the circumstances of the case, the name of the
plaintiff has to be rectified by the defendants in his all records as
'Karthik.M.V' instead of 'Gnaneshwar.M.V'. This view has also been
supported by the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court passed in RFA
No.284/2014 (DEC) dated 02/09/2016. Therefore, having regard to
facts and circumstances of the cases, I am of the opinion that the
plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory
Injunction as observed supra. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 and 2
are in the affirmative.
15. Issue No.3:- In view of my discussion made supra while
dealing with Issue No.1 and 2 the suit of the plaintiff deserve to be
decreed without costs. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the affirmative.,
12
O.S. No.2227/2022
16. Issue No.4 :- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass
the following;
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff hereby decreed.
That hereby declared
that, name of the plaintiff
'Karthik.M.V' and not as
'Gnaneshwar.M.V'.
Further that here
directed to all the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff as 'Karthik.M.V' in the place of 'Gnaneshwar.M.V' in all the school, college academic records, admission registers, marks cards, certificates, transfer certificates of the plaintiff accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[ Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on 13th day of December, 2022 ].
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff :
PW.1 Gnaneshwar.M.V List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -13
O.S. No.2227/2022 List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff :
Ex. P1 Original letter dated 19/10/2019 Ex. P2 Notarized copy of the certificate issued by the Prathibha Bala Mandir Ex. P3 Notarized copy of the birth certificate of P.W. 1 Ex. P4 Notarized copy of the Aadhar card of P.W. 1 Ex. P5 Notarized copy of SSLC marks card of P.W. 1 Ex. P6 Notarized copy of the PUC marks card of P.W. 1 Ex. P7 Notarized copy of the course completion certificate issued by Vidya Vikas Institute of Engineering and Technology of P.W. 1 Ex. P8, 8(a&b) Legal notice dated 09/12/2021 along with postal receipts and acknowledgments Ex. P9 Reply dated 29/12/2021 issued by the Vishveshwarayya Technology Center Ex. P10 Reply dated 11/01/2022 issued by the Director of Degree college List of documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU 14 O.S. No.2227/2022 Operative portion of the judgment pronounced in open court vide separate judgment:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff hereby decreed.
That hereby declared that, name of the plaintiff 'Karthik.M.V' and not as 'Gnaneshwar.M.V'.
Further that here directed to all the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff as 'Karthik.M.V' in the place of 'Gnaneshwar.M.V' in all the school, college academic records, admission registers, marks cards, certificates, transfer certificates of the plaintiff accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 15 O.S. No.2227/2022