Bangalore District Court
Kiran Paarikshith.K vs The Tahsildar/The Registrar Of Birth on 24 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
Dated on this the 24th day of September 2018
-: Present :-
Sri. Khadarsab, B.A., LL.M,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
Original Suit No.10057/2014
Plaintiff:
Kiran Paarikshith.K., 18 Years,
S/o.R.Krishnamurthy, R/o.No.13/1, 9th
'C' Main Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
[By Sri. Chidananda Murthy, Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants:
1. The Tahsildar/The Registrar of Birth
and Death, Tumakuru Taluk Office,
Tumakuru.
2. The Secretary, Karnataka Secondary
Education Examination Board,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore - 560 003.
3. The Principal/Head Master, K.L.E.
Society's S.Nijalingappa PU College, 2nd
Block, Rajajinagara, Bangalore - 10.
4. The Director/Secretary, Pre-University
Board, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 - 003.
5. The Principal/Head Master, East West
Institute of Technology, No.63, Magadi
Main Road, Bharathanagara,
Bangalore - 560 091.
[Defendants No.1,2, 4 and 5 - Ex-parte.
Sri.K.R.Shivakumar - Advocate for
Defendant No.3]
Date of Institution of the suit : 19.12.2014
Nature of suit : Suit for declaration/
compensation
Date of commencement of : 01.08.2017
evidence
Date on which the judgment is : 24.09.2018
pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
03 09 05
***
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of mandatory injunctions for a direction against the defendants for making correction in the birth certificate pertains to the plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that, the plaintiff's mother gave birth to the plaintiff in Siddhartha Medical Hospital, Agalekote, Tumkur District on 27.8.1997. At that time, the family members of the plaintiff had orally given instructions to the hospital authorities for entering the name of the parents of the plaintiff. But, inadvertently the hospital authorities have entered the name of the plaintiff's mother as 'Usha' in the mother's column. In fact, the name of the plaintiff's mother is 'Nagamani'. The correct name of the plaintiff's mother is entered in the school records, PAN Card, Voter's I.D. and Driving Licence. The plaintiff recently came to know about the wrong entry of the name of his mother in his Birth Certificate. After coming to know of the same, his mother approached the BBMP and requested for the correction of wrong entry, but the authorities have refused to do so and advised her to approach Civil Court.
3. After oral refusal of the defendants, the plaintiff's mother issued a legal notice to the defendants on 14.7.2014. The said notice have been received by all the defendants, even then they have failed to make necessary correction in the Birth Certificate. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit for rectification of Birth Certificate.
4. After institution of the suit, the suit summons were issued to all the defendants. The defendant No.3 appeared through its counsel, but the defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 5 remained absent. Hence, the defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are placed ex-parte. Though defendant No.3 appeared through its counsel, the Court has provided sufficient opportunity for filing the written statement, even then, the defendant No.3 failed to file its written statement.
5. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and documents got marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, documents and evidence, the following points arise for my consideration :-
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought in the plaint?
2) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable ?
3) What order or decree?
7. Heard the learned advocate for plaintiff. Iso
8. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative. Point No.2 : In the negative. Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 :- Plaintiff has filed the present suit for rectification of his Birth Certificate. It is pleaded in his plaint that, his mother gave birth to the him in Siddhartha Medical Hospital, Agalekote, Tumkur District on 27.8.1997. At that time, the family members of the plaintiff had orally given instructions to the hospital authorities for entering the name of his parents in the birth register. But, inadvertently the hospital authorities have entered the name of plaintiff's mother as 'Usha' in the mother's column. In fact, the name of the plaintiff's mother is 'Nagamani'. Accordingly, in all her school testimony and in Aadhaar card, voter's I.D., her name is mentioned as Nagamani. The plaintiff pleaded that recently he came to know about the wrong entry in his Birth Certificate. After coming to know of the same, his mother approached the BBMP and requested for the rectification, but the authority have refused to do so and advised her to approach Civil Court for her redressal. Even then the mother of plaintiff got issued Legal Notice - Ex.P.5 to the defendants for rectification. The said notice have been received by all the defendants, even then they have failed to make necessary corrections in the Birth Certificate. Hence, plaintiff prays for decree of the suit.
10. In order to substantiate his case, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and deposed that, the defendant No.1 wrongly entered his mother's name as Usha instead of Nagamani. The correct name of the plaintiff's mother is Nagamani. Accordingly, in Ex.P.2 - original SSLC Marks Card and Ex.P.4 - Aadhaar Card pertains to plaintiff's mother, the name of the plaintiff's mother is correctly mentioned as Nagamani.
11. Though the plaintiff contended that the family members of the plaintiff gave correct information regarding the parents' name of the plaintiff, but the hospital authorities have wrongly entered his mother's name in Birth Certificate. In order to substantiate his case, it is the duty of the plaintiff to adduce the evidence of his family members who gave an information to the hospital authorities for entering his mother's name in the Birth Certificate. But, the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of his family members. Besides, the mother of the plaintiff has not appeared before this Court to give evidence stating that her name has been wrongly entered in the Birth Certificate pertains to her son - plaintiff in this regard. In this regard, as per Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, non-production of vital witness attracts an adverse presumption against the plaintiff's mother. Therefore, the non-examination of the plaintiff's mother in this case is fatal to the plaintiff's case.
12. The plaintiff contended in his plaint at para 6 that after coming to know the wrong entry in his Birth Certificate, the plaintiff's mother approached to the BBMP, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru for rectification of Birth Certificate, but BBMP authority refused to change the name. But, looking from the entire pleadings and documents available, it clearly goes to show that the plaintiff's mother gave birth to the plaintiff in Siddhartha Medical Hospital, Agalekote, Tumkur District and all original entries will be in C.M.C. Agalekote, not in BBMP. It is the duty of the plaintiff to approach C.M.C., Agalekote for his redressal. The plaintiff not at all approached the proper forum for rectification. As per Section 15 of the Registration of Births And Deaths Act, 1969, "The correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths - if the entry of birth or death in any register kept by the Registrar under the said Act is erroneous in form or substances or has been fraudulently or improperly made, the Registrar may subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin without any alteration of the original entry." Hence, in this case the plaintiff sought for correction of his mother's name in the Birth Certificate, he ought to have approach the concerned authority for rectification. In this case, the plaintiff has utterly failed to show that he complied Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 for rectification of his mother's name in his Birth Certificate. Hence, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants have wrongly entered the name of the plaintiff's mother in his Birth Certificate. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
13. Point No.2 : - That the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants No.1, 2 and 4. Admittedly, the defendants No.1, 2 and 4 are the government officials. As per Section 80 of C.P.C., "No suit shall be instituted against the government or public officers in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity until the expiry of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office." In this case the plaintiff has failed to produce any documents to show that he got issued prior notice as contemplated under Section 80 of C.P.C. to defendant No.4. Hence, without issuing prior notice to the defendant No.4 as contemplated under Section 80 of C.P.C., the suit is not maintainable.
14. Besides, as per Order XXVII Rule 5(A) of C.P.C.:-
"Government to be joined as a party in a suit against the public officer - where a suit is instituted against a public officer for damages or other relief in respect of any act alleged to have been done by him in his official capacity, the Government shall be joined as a party to the suit."
In this case, the plaintiff has not made the Government as a party to the proceedings. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, I answer point No.2 in the negative.
15. Point No.3:- In view of my finding on points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of September, 2018.) (KHADARSAB) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 : Kiran Parikshith
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 Birth Certificate
Ex.P.2 Original SSLC Marks Card
Ex.P.3 Attested copy of 1st PUC Marks Card
Ex.P.4 Aadhaar Card
Ex.P.5 Office copy of the Notice dated
14.7.2014.
Ex.P.6 3 Postal Receipts
Ex.P.7 2 Postal acknowledgments.
Ex.P.8 Office copy of the letter addressed to
Post Master, Sheshadripuram.
(KHADARSAB)
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***