Allowed¶45

Sri.Y M Dastagir Khan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2025RFA/1577/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Name correction declaration; mandatory injunction; change of name and father's name in school and Government records; SSLC board; Government schools Srinivasapur Taluk, Kolar District; RFA under Section 96 CPC; O.S.No.2849/2021; V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru; judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022 set aside; suit decreed; compliance within one month; NC: 2025:KHC:41734; Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar; High Court of Karnataka; decided 23.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed as sought; respondents directed to change the plaintiff's name to 'Y.M. Dastagir Khan S/o Mahaboob Khan' and the father's name to 'Mahaboob Khan' in all records maintained by them, including educational and service records, within one month from receipt of a copy of the order; Registry directed to draw up the decree accordingly. ¶45

Sri.Y M Dastagir Khan Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant–plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of his name as 'Y.M.Dasthagir Khan s/o Mahaboob Khan' in place of 'Mohamad Dasthagir Y.M. s/o Shek Mahaboob' in his school and Government records, with consequential mandatory injunction directing the respondents to enter the corrected name.

¶28

Court's answer

The Trial Court failed to consider the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged material produced by the plaintiff and completely misdirected itself in dismissing the suit by assigning wholly untenable reasons contrary to the material on record; consequently the impugned judgment and decree deserve to be set aside and the suit decreed in the plaintiff's favour.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022 in O.S.No.2849/2021 is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is decreed as sought for.

¶46

Key takeaways

The respondents are directed to change the plaintiff's name from 'Mohamad Dastagir Y.M. S/o Shek Mahaboob' to 'Y.M. Dastagir Khan S/o Mahaboob Khan' and the father's name from 'Shek Mahaboob' to 'Mahaboob Khan' in all records maintained by them, including educational and service records, within one month from receipt of a copy of the order; Registry to draw up the decree accordingly.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under S.96 CPC by the plaintiff against dismissal of his suit for declaration and mandatory injunction seeking correction of his recorded name from 'Mohamad Dasthagir Y.M. s/o Shek Mahaboob' to 'Y.M.Dasthagir Khan s/o Mahaboob Khan', and of his father's name to 'Mahaboob Khan', in school and Government records. The trial Court had dismissed the suit despite the plaintiff examining himself as PW-1 with Exs.P1-P12 and the defendants leading no evidence. Holding that the Trial Court completely misdirected itself by assigning wholly untenable reasons contrary to the unimpeached, uncontroverted material on record, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022 in O.S.No.2849/2021, decreed the suit as sought, and directed the respondents to effect the name corrections in all records, including educational and service records, within one month.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41734 RFA No. 1577 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1577 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.Y M DASTAGIR KHAN S/O MAHABOOB KHAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.596/10, 75^TH B CROSS 10^TH G MAIN ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K R CIRCLE, NEAR R B I BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD, (SSLC), MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003

¶16

THE HEAD MASTER/HEAD MISTRESS GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL YADAGANAPALLY SRINIVASAPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:41734 RFA No. 1577 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE HEAD MASTER/HEAD MISTRESS GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL ADDAGAL, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135

¶21

THE HEAD MASTER/HEAD MISTRESS GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL GOWNIPALLY, SRINIVASPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135 …RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.NEELAKANTAPPA PUJAR, HCGP)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2022 PASSED IN OS No.2849/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.2849/2021 by the V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit

¶28

filed by the appellant – plaintiff for declaration of his name as ‘Y.M.Dasthagir Khan s/o Mahaboob Khan’ in place of ‘Mohamad Dasthagir Y.M. s/o Shek Mahaboob’ in the records of his school,

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41734 RFA No. 1577 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Government authorities, etc., and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the respondents – defendants to enter the plaintiff’s name in the records was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

¶33

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶34

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 Y.M.Dasthagir Khan s/o Mahaboob Khan and the same was wrongly entered in all records at school, Government authorities, etc., Subsequently, based on the advise of Astrologer, the plaintiff intended to change his name and that his father died on 02.08.2019. Thereafter, he approached the 6^th respondent seeking correction of his name and father’s name, but the same was refused. On 11.03.2020, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the respondents and since his request was not complied with by the respondents, the appellant instituted the aforesaid suit before the trial Court.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:41734 RFA No. 1577 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

In the said suit, defendants – respondents filed their written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation and that the same is liable to be dismissed. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked, while defendants did not adduce any oral 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.

¶39

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 which clearly established that while his original name was ‘Y.M.Dasthagir Khan s/o Mahaboob Khan’ and based on the advise of Astrologer, the plaintiff intended to change his name by taking all necessary steps to get his name changed to ‘Y.M.Dasthagir Khan s/o Mahaboob’ by approaching the respondents in the first instance along with relevant documents in support of the same and thereafter, issuing legal notice as borne

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41734 RFA No. 1577 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

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.

¶43

In the result, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.

¶46

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.2849/2021 on the file of the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶47

(iii) Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed as sought for by him.

¶48

(iv) The respondents are directed to change the name of the plaintiff from “ Mohamad Dastagir Y.M. S/o Shek Mahaboob ” to “Y.M. Dastagir Khan S/o Mahaboob Khan” as well as change the name of the plaintiff’s father from “Shek Mahaboob” to “Mahaboob Khan” in all the records maintained by the respondents, including

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:41734 RFA No. 1577 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the educational record, service record etc., within a period of one

¶53

month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶54

(v) Registry is directed to draw up the decree accordingly.

¶55