Bangalore District Court
Kum. Tejaswini Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 2 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: 2nd DECEMBER 2015
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 7135/2014
********
PLAINTIFF: Kum. Tejaswini Nagaraj,
D/o M. C. Nagaraju, Aged 14 years,
R/a No.896, 13th main,
Vinayaka Layout, Nagarabhavi,
2nd stage, Bangalore 560 072
Represented by her natural Guardian
And father, Sri M.C. Nagaraju,
(By Sri Harish. N.V., Advocate)
V/s -
DEFENDANTS: 1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Education Department,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001.
2. The Director of Public Instruction
(Secondary), Department of Public
Instruction, Nrupathunga road,
K.R. Circle, Bangalore.
2 O.S.No.7135/2014
3. The Principal,
The New Cambridge High School, RPC
Layout, Vijayanagara,
Bangalore 560 104.
4. The Principal,
Vijaya Bharathi Vidyalaya,
570/A, 2nd Phase, Girinagar,
Bangalore 560 085.
5. The Principal, St. Sophia Convent
High School, No.6, 10th block,
Nagarabhavi 2nd stage,
Bangalore 560 072.
(By Smt. D. Leelakrishnan, Advocate,
For Deft No.3 and Deft No.1, 2 and 4
Placed Exparte)
*****
Date of institution of the suit : 16-09-2014.
Nature of the suit Mandatory Injunction
Date of the commencement of 10-09-2015.
recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 02-12-2015.
was pronounced
Total duration Year Month Days
01 02 16
******
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit claiming a decree for mandatory injunction directing defendants to enter the plaintiff's name as 'N. Leelanjali' instead of 'Tejeshwini Nagaraj' in all her records.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint, is as follows:
3 O.S.No.7135/2014
The plaintiff born on 16-01-2000. The plaintiff completed her 1st standard to 3rd standard in the defendant No.3 school. The plaintiff continued her education and studied 4th standard in the defendant No.4 school and studied 9th standard in the defendant No.5 school. At the time of joining the plaintiff to the school, her name was entered as Tejeshwini Nagaraj and was continued in all her school records. The plaintiff believes in numerology and as per numerology and horoscope, name of the plaintiff should be 'N. Leelanjali'. As per date of birth and according to the predictions of numerology, plaintiffs name should be N.Leelanjali. The plaintiff prayed defendants to enter her name as 'N. Leelanjali' in her school records. But, defendants have refused to do so. The plaintiff issued legal notice dated 30- 06-2014 calling upon defendants to make changes in the school records of the plaintiff. But, defendants failed to comply the legal notice, which made plaintiff to file the present suit. On these grounds, plaintiff claimed a decree for mandatory injunction in the above terms.
3. In response to the summons issued by this Court, defendant No.3 appeared before this court through their counsel whereas other defendants failed to appear before this court and 4 O.S.No.7135/2014 placed exparte. The defendant No.3 filed written statement and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and it is only misconceived and factually incorrect. The plaintiff has suppressed the true facts within her knowledge and also attempted to twist the true facts for the purpose of convenience. The suit is barred by limitation. The name of the plaintiff is already entered as Tejeshwini Nagaraj in all her public records. Therefore, at the whims and fancies of the plaintiff, she cannot change her name. The plaintiff is not entitled for the decree for change of name of these records. On all 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:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that her name is N. Leelanjali as per her birth certificate?
2. Whether the suit is barred by time?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
4. What Order or Decree?
5. To prove the above issues and to substantiate her contentions, father and natural guardian of the minor plaintiff before this Court as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 12 5 O.S.No.7135/2014 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 NEGATIVE.
ISSUE NO.3 : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ISSUE NO.4 : AS PER FINAL ORDER.
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1:-
8. Since the plaintiff is minor, her father and natural guardian was examined before this court as PW-1. PW-1, in his examination in chief affidavit, has reiterated the plain averments and deposed that the plaintiff was born on 16-01-2000 and while admitting her to the school, her name was entered as Tejeshwini Nagaraj. PW-1 further deposed that as per the numerology and horoscope, plaintiff's name should be changed as 'N. Leelanjali'.
PW-1 further deposed that he requested the defendants to change the name of the plaintiff in her school records and that 6 O.S.No.7135/2014 they refused to do so. PW-1 further deposed about they issued legal notice to defendants. PW-1 further deposed that since defendants failed to comply legal notice, plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.
9. The plaintiff has produced study certificate as per Ex.P-1 to P-3. The legal notice issued by the defendants is marked as per Ex.P-4. The postal receipts for having sent legal notice by registered post is marked as per Ex.P-5. The letter issued to the postal department is marked as Ex.P-6. The reply given by postal department regarding service of notice upon the defendants marked as per Ex.P-7 to 11.
10. The defendants failed to cross examine PW-1 and also failed to let in any evidence on their behalf in spite of giving opportunity to them. Due to which the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged and undisputed.
11. It is the specific case made out by the plaintiff that her name was entered as Tejeshwini Nagaraj in her school records and it would have been 'N. Leelanjali', because as per the numerology and horoscope and date of birth of the plaintiff her name would have been 'N. Leelanjali'. The plaintiff has produced her study certificate as per Ex.P-1 to 3, which was 7 O.S.No.7135/2014 issued by defendants. In all these records name of the plaintiff is entered as Tejeshwini Nagaraj. The plaintiff is now aged about 14 years and she is studying in 9th standard. At this stage she has filed the suit for change of her name in the school records since as per the numerology and horoscope her name would have been 'N. Leelanjali'. The plaintiff is not intended to get any unlawful gain or there is no such malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff in changing her name since she is a minor and studying in 9th standard. Now as per the Government circular, any entries in the school records cannot be changed without the decree from the civil court. Therefore the plaintiff constrained to file this 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 is not intended to 8 O.S.No.7135/2014 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 mandatory injunction as claimed in this suit. Hence I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
ISSUE No.2:-
13. This issue is regarding the period of limitation in filing the suit. The defendants made bald allegation that the suit is barred by limitation, without assigning any reason to say that the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff is still a minor. Therefore, she suffers from legal disability to file the suit. Hence under Sec.6 of the Limitation Act, this suit would not be barred by limitation. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the negative.
ISSUE No.3:-
14. In view of my finding on the above issues the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be decreed, as she is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction to change her name in her school records. Therefore, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
ISSUE No. 4:-
15. 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 the case, I feel it is just and proper 9 O.S.No.7135/2014 to direct both the parties 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.
The defendants are hereby directed to change the name of the plaintiff as 'N. Leelanjali' instead of Tejeshwini Nagaraj in all her school records.
I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
******* (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, the transcript corrected by me, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 2nd day of December 2015).
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
()()()()()()() ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 Sri M.C. Nagaraj LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P-1 to 3 Study certificates
Ex.P-4 Legal notice
Ex.P-5 Postal receipts
10 O.S.No.7135/2014
Ex.P-6 Letter addressed to postal department
Ex.P-7 to 11 Endorsement by Postal department Ex.P-12 Horoscope of plaintiff 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.7135/2014
(Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate judgment) ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in the following terms.
The defendants are hereby directed to change the name of the plaintiff as 'N. Leelanjali' instead of Tejeshwini Nagaraj in all her 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.7135/2014