Bangalore District Court
Subodhaanandateerthakatti vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE (C.C.H.No.8)
Dated this the 16th day of April 2015
PRESENT: SRI.S.V.Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB(Spl).
XI Addl.City Civil Judge, B'lore city.
O.S.No.8569/2013
Plaintiff Subodhaanandateerthakatti
S/o A.B. Katti,
Aged about 22 years,
No.68, 6th cross,
S.L.N. Nilaya,
B.S.K. I Stage, Vinayakanagar,
Bangalore - 560 050.
[By Sri S.G.P. Advocate]
-Vs-
Defendants: 1. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. The Deputy Director of
Public Instruction,
Education Department,
Bangalore South District,
Bangalore.
3. The Secretary,
S.S.L.C. Board,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore.
2 O.S.No.8569/2013
4. The Secretary,
Pre-University Board,
K.R.Circle,
Bangalore.
5. National High School,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore 560 004.
Rptd. By its Principal.
6. The Vice Chancellor,
Bangalore University,
K.R.Circle,
Bnagalore 560 001.
[By Addl. Govt. Pleader]
Date of the institution of suit : 25.11.2013
Nature of the suit : Declaration and
Injunction.
Date of the commencement of
recording of the evidence : 20.12.2014
Date on which the judgment
was pronounced : 16.04.2015
Total duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 04 21
XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
3 O.S.No.8569/2013
JUDGMENT
This is the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of correction of the name of the plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint averments is as follows -
The plaintiff has completed his S.S.L.C. education in the institution of defendant No.5 in the year March 2009. Wherein 3rd defendant has issued S.S.L.C. certificate in the name of plaintiff's son vide certificate No.003147. Copy of the S.S.L.C. certificate is produced at annexure-A and copy of transfer certificate is produced at annexure-B. The plaintiff has completed his 2nd P.U.C. and 4th defendant has issued P.U.C. marks card under certificate No.432392 and presently doing his degree course. The plaintiff approached the astrologer and asked about the horoscope and kundali of the plaintiff, Subodhaanandateerthakatti and such other things about his future as per their religious 4 O.S.No.8569/2013 custom. Wherein according to astrology and also in view of religious customs and rituals followed by the plaintiff's family, wherein plaintiff and his family members did not want to continue his name as "Subodhaanandateerthakatti" and the plaintiff wanted to change his name as "Subodha A. Katti" in place of Subodhaanandateerthakatti taking into consideration of bright future of plaintiff and plaintiff approached the defendants with a request to change his name by deleting existing name to Subodha A. Katti. In this regard, the plaintiff has executed an affidavit which is sworn before the notary public and the said affidavit is notarized and produced the same before the defendants No.3 to 5. However, defendants No.3 to 5 declined to entertain the request of the plaintiff for change of name in the school records maintained by them. However, defendants No.3 to 5 directed the plaintiff to approach Civil Court and directed to seek declaration relief for change of name and accordingly plaintiff in the year 2010 had filed suit in 5 O.S.No.8569/2013 O.S.No.3859/2010 without complying mandatory requirement of Section 80 of C.P.C. The said suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed for non compliance of legal notice to the concerned Government Officials. Thereafter, the plaintiff has issued notice to the defendants and received acknowledgments from defendants No.2, 4 and 5, then the plaintiff has filed another suit on 23.05.2012 in O.S.No.2743/2012 and the said suit came to be dismissed for non service of notice to defendants 1 and 3 and directed to file a suit for compliance of notice regarding mandatory compliance regarding issuance of statutory notice and after receiving the acknowledgment from the defendants and to file fresh suit and suit was dismissed on 07.02.2013 and thereafter the plaintiff has again caused legal notice dated 13.03.2013 to all the defendants. Wherein the said notice was served upon the defendants and plaintiff has produced legal notice, postal receipts and postal acknowledgments in the suit as per annexure-E, 6 O.S.No.8569/2013 F, G, H, J, K and L, wherein 4th defendant has given reply to rectify the records in the primary educational records by obtaining the order form the Court. The reply/endorsement given by the defendant No.4 is produced at annexure-M. Hence, the cause of action to file this suit arose to plaintiff as disclosed in para 8 of the plaint and plaintiff stated that the cause of action arose to him on the date of issuance of legal notice dated 13.03.2013 and when the defendants authorities declined to consider his demand in the legal notice for correction of change of his name by deleting the existing name to that of proposed change of name and hence the plaintiff constrained to file this suit for declaration of his name and for mandatory injunction relief against the defendants to effect necessary changes of the plaintiff's name in the concerned educational records.
3. The defendants No.1 to 3 appeared through Additional District Government pleader, whereas 7 O.S.No.8569/2013 defendants No.4 to 6 remained exparte in spite of service of suit summons. The defendants No.1 to 3 have filed written statement stating that defendant No.2 is authorized to sign, verify and swear to this affidavit on behalf of defendants No.1 and 3. The gazetted assistant of the defendant No.2 is authorized to sign, verify pleadings and swear to affidavit on behalf of other defendants. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence defendant No.2 denied the averments made in para 4 to 7 of the plaint and called upon the plaintiff to prove the averments made by the plaintiff by strict proof of evidence. The plaintiff has filed this suit after lapse of many years and suit is liable to be dismissed and there is no cause of action for the suit and alleged cause of action is imaginary. Defendant No.2 also denied the cause of action as stated by the plaintiff to file the suit. As per circular issued by the Commissioner, Education Department, there is no provision to change the name in school records and on 8 O.S.No.8569/2013 this ground also the suit is not maintainable. Hence, defendants No.1 to 3 on these defence resists the suit filed the by plaintiff and prays to dismiss the suit.
4. Based upon these pleadings the following issues have been framed for trial of the suit on 17.11.2013.
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he wanted to change his name as "Subodha A. Katti"?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
3) What order or decree?
5. In order to prove the above issues, plaintiff himself has examined as P.W.1 through affidavit evidence filed in lieu of examination in chief and P.W.1 further got examined on 20.12.2014 and in his oral evidence Ex.P.1 to 14 are came to be marked and Additional Government Pleader appearing for defendants No.1 to 3 cross examined the P.W.1 and with this evidence, plaintiff evidence is closed. 9 O.S.No.8569/2013 Thereafter defendants No.1 to 3 have not lead any evidence and on 23.01.2015 it is taken as defendants No.1 to 3 have no oral evidence and accordingly the suit is posted for arguments.
6. Heard the arguments of counsel for plaintiff and heard the arguments of Additional District Government Pleader for defendants No.1 to 3 and perused the suit records particularly pleadings of the plaintiff, written statement filed by defendants No1 to 3 and on appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 and coupled with documents marked through P.W.1 from Ex.P.1 to P.14.
7. My answer to the above issues are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the affirmative.
Point No.2: In the affirmative.
Point No.2: The suit of the plaintiff
deserves to be decreed without
any order as to costs against
defendants for the following
reasons:-
10 O.S.No.8569/2013
:REASONS:
8. Issue No.1 and 2: The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants No.1 to 6 seeking relief of declaration and for change of name by deleting the existing name of plaintiff in the educational records like S.S.L.C. marks card and P.U.C. marks card, wherein plaintiff intended to change his name from the existing name in the school records from Subodhaanandateerthakatti to Subodha A. Katti and it is the case of the plaintiff that his family consisting of orthodox family and himself and his family members following religious customs and on enquiry of astrologer and asked about his prospectus about his future carrier, wherein as per the advise of astrologer and as per the customs of their community, wherein they advised for change of name from the existing name to Subodha A. Katti and hence plaintiff intended to seek change of his name by deleting the existing name in the school records and to substitute the same by insertion of the real name of plaintiff as Subodha A. Katti. 11 O.S.No.8569/2013 Defendants No.3 to 5 not considered the demand made by the plaintiff in the legal notice in view of existing circular/notification issued by the Commissioner of Department of Education, Government of Karnataka and accordingly plaintiff approached this Court for seeking relief in respect of change of name. The plaintiff in order to prove issue No.1 has given evidence before this Court by an affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief and this affidavit is treated as plaintiff's evidence in this case under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C., wherein on perusal of chief examination of P.W.1, wherein P.W.1 has given verbatam evidence deposing the facts in the affidavit as stated in the plaint averments through his oral evidence and P.W.1 got marked Ex.P.1 to 14 consisting of Ex.P.1 is S.S.L.C. marks card issued by defendant No.3, wherein plaintiff passed S.S.L.C. examination during the month of March 2009 and Ex.P.2 is school leaving certificate as plaintiff studied in defendant No.5 institution of P.U.C. education and this T.C. is issued by defendant No.5 school i.e. National 12 O.S.No.8569/2013 High School, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Ex.P.3 is affidavit sworn to by father of the plaintiff regarding change of name of his son i.e. present plaintiff before the notary public dated 04.06.2009. Ex.P.4 is the office copy of legal notice dated 13.03.2013 issued to defendants No.1 to 6. Ex.P.5 is also office copy of legal notice dated 13.03.2013. Ex.P.6 to 11 are the postal receipts and Ex.P.12 and 13 are the postal acknowledgements for having served legal notice on defendants No.4 and 5. Ex.P.14 is reply given by the Directorate of Pre-University Education, Malleshwaram, Bangalore to the counsel for the plaintiff stating that Ex.P.14 is endorsement and reply to legal notice dated 13.03.2013 stating that the name of correction of change of name is to be effected at the primary school level and thereafter to approach the collegiate education authority and to consult and approach the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Pre-University Education and hence with this reply the Directorate of Pre- University Education has given reply to the plaintiff's 13 O.S.No.8569/2013 legal notice. Hence, P.W.1 relying upon his evidence coupled with Ex.P.1 to 14 has prayed for grant of relief as prayed by him in this suit.
9. The learned Additional District Government Pleader appearing for defendants No.1 to 3 cross examined to P.W.1, wherein P.W.1 denied that he has filed the false suit against the defendants No.1 to 3 and further P.W.1 denied that there is no cause of action against the defendants No.1 to 3 for institution of this suit and P.W.1 denied that he is not entitled for any relief sought for against the defendants No.1 to 3. Hence, there is brief cross-examination directed to P.W.1 on behalf of defendants No.1 to 3.
10. The counsel for the plaintiff argued in support of this case contending that the plaintiff intended to change his name as 'Subodha A. Katti' instead of Subodhaanandateerthakatti as plaintiff and his family members are from orthodox family and following the astrology and religion and customs and change of name 14 O.S.No.8569/2013 is not for any purpose, but it is in the best interest of the plaintiff and in order to build up his future carrier of the plaintiff he intends to change his name and there is no oblique motive on the part of the plaintiff in seeking change of his name from existing name in school records. Hence, counsel for plaintiff relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and further contended that plaintiff is studying in graduation level and plaintiff previously had filed suits in O.S. No.3859/2010 and O.S. No.2743/2012 and the said suits are came to be dismissed for non service of statutory notice on defendants and now after compliance of mandatory notice to be issued under Section 80 of C.P.C. has filed this suit, wherein defendants No.2 and 5 are served with notice and Director of Pre-University Education given reply as per Ex.P.14 stating that in order to change the name in the school records they are to be effected only at the primary school level and higher secondary level and hence defendants No.3 to 5 declined to entertain the requests made by the plaintiff.
15 O.S.No.8569/2013
11. After hearing arguments of counsel for plaintiff and Learned Additional District Government Pleader, wherein previous suits filed by the plaintiff are dismissed for want of compliance of Section 80 of C.P.C. notice (statutory notice) to be issued by the plaintiff against the Government officials. Though defendants No.1 to 3 have contended that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff and also taken impliedly the plea of limitation for filing the suit by the plaintiff, wherein the plaintiff was minor when he was studying S.S.L.C. in the school run by the defendant No.5 wherein plaintiff has passed S.S.L.C. examination held during March 2009 as per Ex.P.1 and plaintiff ought to have filed this suit through his father who was minor guardian when plaintiff was studying S.S.L.C. examination. The plaintiff has passed 2nd P.U.C. and obtained 2nd P.U.C. certificate from 4th defendant and Now plaintiff is studying in degree education, wherein age of the plaintiff shown in this plaint cause title as 22 years, wherein the suit for declaration in respect of 16 O.S.No.8569/2013 change of name, change of date of birth and for other rectifications in the school records are to be filed within 3 years from the date of accrual of cause of action as per article 58 of Limitation Act. In this present case plaintiff has completed S.S.L.C. in the year 2009 and completed the P.U.C. after lapse of 2 years in the year 2011 and the suit is filed in the year 2013, wherein the age of the plaintiff is in between 21 to 22 years as on the date of presentation of plaint on 25.11.2013. Hence, even if assuming that plaintiff was minor when he was studying S.S.L.c. and P.U.C. education and plaintiff has filed this suit soon after he attained majority and as such the suit of the plaintiff filed for change of name appears to be not barred by limitation, wherein plaintiff has caused legal notice to defendants in this case and produced postal receipts/postal acknowledgments and the suit filed by the plaintiff previously are came to be dismissed for non compliance of statutory notice to be issued under Section 80 of C.P.C. and as such question of res-judicata does not applicable in this case, wherein 17 O.S.No.8569/2013 defendants No.1 to 3 have denied the request of the plaintiff and they have raised objection in their written statement of limitation and also directed the plaintiff to seek declaration from the Civil Court and as such even if the plaintiff is permitted to change his name no loss or prejudice will caused to the defendants. On the contrary, the plaintiff for the purpose of his convenience and plaintiff and his family members are reliance persons following customs and traditions of their community and for the better prospectus and future carrier of the plaintiff, plaintiff intends to change his name from deleting the existing name into 'Subodha A. Katti' and hence, even if the plaintiff's relief is considered by the Court there is no oblique motive or malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in seeking change of his name and hence with these observations, plaintiff has made out case to entertain the suit and to grant relief and even if government circular issued by the Commissioner of Department of Education, Government of Karnataka, dated 02.05.2000 wherein 18 O.S.No.8569/2013 the powers of D.D.P.I. or any other superior officers having under the education department, wherein their powers had been withdrawn in entertain the change of name, wherein Government of Karnataka decided not to entertain the request of the students for change of name, date of birth, caste etc unless there is a decree obtained by the plaintiff for change of name declaration of caste declaration of date of birth etc. in the school records. Hence, in view of government circular dated 02.05.2000 issued by Commissioner of Department of Education, wherein the suit is maintainable filed by the plaintiff before Civil Court for declaration and mandatory injunction and hence plaintiff has established that he is entitled for the suit relief and hence suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed and plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed by him regarding change of his name. Hence, I answered Point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
19 O.S.No.8569/2013
12. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings on points No.1, and 2 the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be decreed without order as to cost against the defendants. Hence, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed without, any order as to cost against the defendants.
It is directed to the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff by deleting the existing name appearing in the educational records of the plaintiff as Subodhanandateerthakatti and in its place to substitute and insert the plaintiff name as Subodha A. Katti and defendants shall effect the necessary changes in the S.S.L.C. marks card and also in the concerned P.U.C. Marks card issued to the plaintiff and hence, forth the plaintiff's name shall be maintained in the school records as Subodha A. Katti.
20 O.S.No.8569/2013
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the day of 16th April 2015) (S.V.KULKARNI) XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:-
PW.1 Subodhaanandateerthakatti List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 S.S.L.C. Marks Card
Ex.P.2 Copy of Leaving Certificate
Ex.P.3 Affidavit
Ex.P.4 and 5 Copy of legal notices
Ex.P.6 to 11 Postal Receipts
Ex.P.12 and Postal Acknowledgments
13
Ex.P.14 Reply of defendant No.4
21 O.S.No.8569/2013
List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for defendant:
Nil XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY 22 O.S.No.8569/2013