Allowed

Sri. Prakash Reddy H S v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023RFA/2147/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Regular First Appeal challenged a trial court judgment dismissing a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to change the appellant's name in public records. This Court held the trial court failed to appreciate uncontroverted evidence proving the name change and set aside the decree, allowing the suit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree dated 05.09.2023 passed in O.S.No.474/2023 is set aside and the suit is decreed as sought by the appellant.

Sri. Prakash Reddy H S Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45222 RFA No. 2147 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2147 OF 2023 (DEC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. PRAKASH REDDY H S SREEBALAJI REDDY H.S (NEW NAME) S/O SOMASHEKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 94, 2^ND CROSS ROAD, NANJAMMA LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. MANOJ S N.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶11

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE HEAD MISTRESS R.K. INDIAN SCHOOL (INDIA PUBLIC SCHOOL) KANAKANAGARA, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶13

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BENGALURU NORTH, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶14

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION, EXAMINATION BOARD, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45222 RFA No. 2147 of 2023

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA, P.O BOX NO. 1947 KHANIJA BHAVAN BUILDING, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU RURAL -560 001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA, SHESHADRI ROAD,

¶18

BENGALURU—560 001.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER PAN CARD DEPARTMENT, NO.6, CAMBRIDGE ROAD, POLICE STATION ROAD, UDANT LAYOUT, HALASURU, KARNATAKA-560 008.

¶20

THE ROAD TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER 1^ST FLOOR, A BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶21

THE CHIEF REGISTRAR BIRTHS AND DEATHS 1^ST FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAYA TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

¶22

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R-1, R-3, R-4, R-8 & R-9 SRI. M.N. KUMAR, CGC., ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-7 SRI. SHARASS CHANDRA DODWAD, ADVOCVATE FOR R-6 NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED: 28.11.2023)

¶25

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.474/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45222 RFA No. 2147 of 2023

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.09.2023 passed in O.S.No.474/2023 by the 17^th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-16), Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff for declaration of his name as ‘Sri. Balaji Reddy S’ in place of ‘Prakash Reddy H.S’ and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the respondents – defendants to enter the name of the plaintiff as ‘Sri. Balaji Reddy S’ in all school records, educational records and other registers, records of the respondents – defendants was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶31

The material on record discloses that the appellant – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration and mandatory injunction interalia contending that his original name was ‘Prakash Reddy H.S’ and the same was entered in all his records at school, colleges, University, Government authorities, etc., Subsequently, on the advise of astrologers and for other bonafide reasons, he

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45222 RFA No. 2147 of 2023

¶33

changed his name to ‘Sri. Balaji Reddy S’ and in this regard he swore to an affidavit on 02.11.2020 followed by Newspaper publication in ‘Hosadignatha’ and pursuant thereto he approached the respondents seeking change of his name and entering his name viz., ‘Sri. Balaji Reddy S’ in the records and since his requests were not complied with by the respondents, he instituted the aforesaid suit before the Trial Court.

¶34

In the suit, the defendants did not file their written statement nor contested the suit. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibits P1 to P23 were marked while defendants did not adduce any oral evidence or documentary evidence, pursuant to which, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit, aggrieved by which, the appellant – plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶35

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will clearly indicate that the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged material on record produced by the appellant – plaintiff including his pleadings and oral evidence as

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45222 RFA No. 2147 of 2023

¶37

PW1 and documentary evidence at exhibits P1 to P23, which clearly established that while his original name was ‘Prakash Reddy H.S’, subsequently, on the advise of astrologers and for other bonafide reasons, he changed his name to ‘Sri. Balaji Reddy S’ on 02.11.2020, he took all necessary steps to get his name changed to ‘Sri. Balaji Reddy S’ by swearing to an affidavit, issuing Newspaper publication, etc., as borne out from the material on record. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court completely misdirected itself in dismissing the suit by assigning wholly untenable reasons, which are contrary to the material on record and consequently, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserve to be set aside and the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff deserves to be decreed in his favour.

¶38

6. In the result, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed .

¶41

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 05.09.2023 passed in O.S.No.474/2023 by the 17^th Addl. City

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:45222 RFA No. 2147 of 2023

¶44

Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-16), Bengaluru, is hereby set

¶45

aside

¶46

(iii) The suit of the appellant – plaintiff is decreed as

¶47

sought for by him.

¶48

(iv) Registry is directed to draw decree accordingly.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

DHA / SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Sri. Prakash Reddy H S v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prakash Reddy H S v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Mushtaq I.S Vs Mr. Narendra S

Smt. Srilakshmi Vs M.N. Ramamurthy

Smt Nagalakshmamma Vs Smt Padmavalli

Sri. Muniyappa Vs Sri. Govinda

Sri. R.K Rudraradhya Vs Sri. R Rudraradhya

Smt Leelavathi Vs Sri Vinodkumar Choudary