Bangalore District Court
Kumari Gowramma M vs Karnataka Secondary Education on 26 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: 26TH OCTOBER, 2015.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.7479/2014
*****
PLAINTIFF: Kumari Gowramma M.,
D/o Madaiah, Aged 34 years,
R/a No.48, 3rd Main, 3rd Cross,
Nethravathi Layout, Bangalore - 36.
(By Smt. Mamatha J., Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANTS: 1. Karnataka Secondary Education
Examination Board, The Secretary,
Malleshwaram 6th Cross,
Bangalore - 03.
2. Head Master,
Vidhyamandir High School,
Dooravaninagar,
Bangalore North - 560 016.
2 O.S.No.7479/2014
3. Department of Pre-University
Education, Director,
18th Cross, Sampangi Road,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-09.
4. Principal,
Government Pre-University College,
K.R. Puram, Bangalore-36.
5. Registrar, Bangalore University,
Central College campus,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-01.
6. Principal,
Government First Grade College,
K.R. Puram, Bangalore-36.
7. Electoral Registration Officer,
174, Mahadevapura Assembly
Constituency.
8. Food, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs department,
Government of Karnataka,
Bangalore East.
9. The Chief Secretary,
State of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore.
(Placed exparte)
*****
Date of institution of the suit 26-09-2014
Nature of the suit: DECLARATION & INJUNCTION
Date of the commencement 21-09-2015
of recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 26-10-2015
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 01 00
3 O.S.No.7479/2014
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit claiming the decree to declare her name as Lathasha M and directing the defendants to change her name as Lathasha M in her school and other official records.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint, is as follows:
The plaintiff was born to Smt. Narasamma and Sri Madaiah on 08-04-1980 at Bangalore. The plaintiff studied up to 10th standard in defendant No.2 school, PUC in the defendant No.4 college and degree education in the defendant No.6 college. At the time of her admission to the school, plaintiff's name was entered as Gowramma M and the same was continued in her school and college records. The name of the plaintiff as Gowramma was made without observing the astrological and numerological dictates and norms. The name of the plaintiff as Gowramma M do not suit her numerology. Hence, she wants to change her name as Lathasha M. When the plaintiff requested the defendants to change her name as Lathasha M in her school records, they intimated the plaintiff to obtain decree from the Court. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 24-6-2014 calling 4 O.S.No.7479/2014 upon the defendants to change her name in the school records. But, defendants have failed to comply her request, which made her to file the present suit. On these grounds, plaintiff claimed a 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 placed exparte.
4. To prove and substantiate her case, plaintiff examined before this Court as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 19 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 mandatory injunction as prayed in this suit?
2. What Order or decree?
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- 5 O.S.No.7479/2014 chief affidavit and deposed that she was born on 08-04-1980 and studied up to 10th standard in the defendant No.2 school and completed her PUC education in defendant No.4 college and degree education in defendant No.6 college. PW.1 further deposed that at the time of her admission in the school records, her name was entered as Gowramma M and same was continued in all her school and college records. PW.1 further deposed that her name as Gowramma was not as per the numerological and astrological dictates and norms. Therefore, she wants to change her name as Lathasha M. PW.1 further deposed that the defendants have failed to rectify her name in the school records, without the decree from the Court, in spite of issuance of 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 Degree marks cards were marked as per Exs.P-3 to
5. The Degree certificate of the plaintiff is marked as per Ex.P-6. The Election Identity card of the plaintiff is marked as per Ex.P-
7. The BPL card of the plaintiff's family is marked as per Ex.P-8. The Legal notice addressed to the defendants were marked as per Ex.P-9. The Postal receipt for having sent the legal notice by 6 O.S.No.7479/2014 registered post is marked as per Ex.P-10. The Postal acknowledgment evidencing the service of legal notice upon the defendants were marked as per Ex.P-11 to 16. The reply given by the defendants were marked as per Exs.P-17 to P-19.
10. As I said earlier, in spite of service of summons on them, defendants failed to appear before this Court and they placed exparte. Due to non-appearance of the defendants and the written statement being not filed, plaint averments remained unchallenged. PW.1 was not cross-examined. Therefore, her oral testimony and the documents produced by the plaintiff as per Exs.P-1 to P-19 remained unchallenged. Absolutely there is no rebuttal and contradictory evidence to disbelieve the undisputed pleadings and unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff.
11. It is the case of the plaintiff that her name was entered as Gowramma M while admitting her to the school and same was continued in her school and college records till she completed her B.A. education. To prove and establish the same, plaintiff produced her SSLC marks card, PUC marks card, Degree marks card and degree certificate, as per Ex.P.1 to P6, which are all shows that the name of the plaintiff is entered as Gowramma M. Not only in the school records, even in other official records 7 O.S.No.7479/2014 of the plaintiff, like Election Identity card and BPL card, her name was entered as Gowramma.
12. According to the plaintiff, her name as Gowramma was not as per the astrological and numerological dictates. Therefore, she intends to change her name as Lathasha M. In this regard, when the plaintiff approached the defendants to change her name as Lathasha M. in the school records, they directed the plaintiff to obtain a decree from the civil Court. Accordingly, plaintiff has filed the present suit.
13. There is no other remedy for the plaintiff to change her name, except filing this suit and obtaining the decree from this Court. As per the Government circular, now any entries in the school and college records cannot be changed without the decree from the Civil Court. Therefore, plaintiff constrained to knock the doors of this Court with this suit.
14. 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 8 O.S.No.7479/2014 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 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:-
15. In view of my findings on the above points, suit filed by the plaintiff is deserves to be decreed. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel it is just and proper 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.
It is declared that the name of the plaintiff is Lathasha M. Consequently, defendants are hereby directed to change the name of the plaintiff as Lathasha M instead of Gowramma M in her all school, college and official records. 9 O.S.No.7479/2014
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 26th day of October, 2015).
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
()()()()()() ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 Kumari Gowramma M. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P-1 SSLC Marks card Ex.P-2 PUC marks card Ex.P-3 to 5 Degree marks cards. Ex.P-6 Degree certificate Ex.P-7 Election ID card Ex.P-8 BPL Card Ex.P-9 Legal notice Ex.P-10 Postal receipts.
Ex.P-11 to 16 Postal acknowledgments Ex.P-17 to 19 Reply from defendants. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:-
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:-
- NIL -
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.10 O.S.No.7479/2014
(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 Lathasha M. 11 O.S.No.7479/2014 Consequently, defendants are hereby directed to change the name of the plaintiff as Lathasha M instead of Gowramma M in her all school, college and official records. I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs. Draw decree accordingly.
(MANJUNATH NAYAK) XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.12 O.S.No.7479/2014