Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

R.F.A.No.322 OF 2013 (DEC)


BETWEEN:

Gunda Naika P.S.


S/o.Puttanayak,
Aged about 23 years,
No.282, 5th Cross,
Bhavani Nagar,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bangalore 70. Appellant

(By Sri S.G.Pandit, Advocate)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,


Represented by its Secretary,
Education Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore 1.

2. The Secretary,
Karnataka Secondary Education
Examination Board,
1st Floor, 6th Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore 3.
2

3. The Deputy Director of


Public Instructions,
Ramanagara Dist.
Ramanagara 562 159.

4. The Head Master,


Sri Rama High School,
Hosadurga, Kanakapura
Taluk, Ramanagara Dist. Respondents

(By Sri B.P.Radha, GP for R1 to R3:


R4 served)

This RFA is filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1


CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012
passed in OS.No.5902/2012 on the file of the XL Addl. City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for
declaration.

This RFA, coming on for orders, this day, the Court


delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree, dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Court of the XL

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, (CCH -

41) in O.S.No.5902/2012.

2. The appellant filed the suit seeking the relief of

declaration that his name be declared as Ganesh Nayak P.S.

in the place of Gunda Nayak P.S. He has also sought the


3

direction to the respondents to incorporate his name as

Ganesh Nayak P.S. in the school records. The change of

name is sought based on the advice given by the elders,

family priest and astrologers.

3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 remained ex-parte. The

respondent No.4 appeared, but did not file the written

statement.

4. The Trial Court framed the following points for its

consideration:

1) Whether the plaintiff has made out a case


to declare his name as GANESH NAYAK P.S.?
2) Whether the name of the plaintiff is liable
to be changed as GANESH NAYAK P.S. in place of
his earlier name Gunda Naika P.S. in his
educational records maintained by the defendants?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of
declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed in
the plaint?
4) What order?
4

5. The appellant got himself examined as PW1, marking

the documents at Exs. P1 to P8. The Trial Court answered

the points against the appellant and dismissed the suit.

6. The Trial Courts reasoning appears to be three

folded: (a) It can declare the correct name of a person, if a

mistake has crept into the records. (b) The Court cannot

declare a new name, which is not in existence prior to the

filing of the suit. (c) The appellant has not followed the

procedure prescribed by the State Government and the

Central Government.

7. Sri S.G.Pandit, the learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the only procedure prescribed by the

Governments circular, dated 02.05.2000 for the change of

name is to approach the civil court and obtain the decree. He

submits that there is no other procedure or pre-requirement

prescribed by the Government. He submits that by

inadvertence, the said circular could not be produced before

the Trial Court. He submits that the appellant has produced


5

the same along with I.A.No.1/2013 filed invoking Order 41

Rule 27 of the CPC.

8. Smt.B.P.Radha, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that

the appellant has not produced any documents to the

satisfaction of the Trial Court that he is entitled to the relief of

declaration in the matter of change of name.

9. The Circular, dated 02.05.2000 sought to be

produced with I.A.No.1/2013 is a public document. Its

issuance is fairly not disputed by the learned Government

Pleader. The said document is required for a substantial

cause and to do justice to the parties. I therefore allow

I.A.No.1/2013.

10. It is worthwhile to notice that the respondents have

not filed the written statement, not cross-examined the

appellant and not entered the witness box. Further, they

have not argued out the matter. All these things only go to
6

show that they have no tenable resistance to the prayers

made by the appellant in the suit.

11. When a party approaches the Trial Court for

obtaining the decree for the change of name, it is difficult, if

not impossible, to produce the documents in support of the

change of name. He can only produce voluminous

documents to show what is his prevailing name.

12. The Trial Courts reasoning that the appellant has

not followed the procedure prescribed by the State and the

Central Government is also not tenable. The respondents are

in no position to point out any statutory provision or rule or

Government order or circular prescribing the procedure for

the change of name. On the other hand, the perusal of the

circular, dated 02.05.2000 shows that the only pre-

requirement for effecting the change of name in the

educational records by the Deputy Director of Public

Instructions is the obtaining of the decree by the applicant at

the hands of the competent civil court.


7

13. The suit for the change of name cannot be

dismissed on the ground that the horoscope is not produced

or that its author is not examined or that the family priest is

not examined.

14. Thus, not finding any good reasons to uphold the

judgment and the decree under appeal, I set aside the same.

The change of name does not put the respondents or any

third party to any prejudice. The change of name may or may

not help the appellant (plaintiff). The efficacy of the

astrological advice cannot be tested in the courts of law.

These are the things which depend upon the belief system of

the individuals and the communities to which they belong.

The objective verification of the correctness of the astrological

advice cannot be insisted for.

15. In the result, I pass the following order:

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside.
8

(iii) The appellant is permitted to change his name from

Gunda Nayak P.S. to Ganesh Nayak P.S.*

(iv) The appellant is directed to publish the change of

name in a leading daily, within two weeks from the date of the

issuance of the certified copy of todays order.

(v) Thereafter the respondents are directed to

incorporate the change of name in their records.

16. No order as to costs.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Cm/-

*Corrected vide Court order dated:20.06.2014.