Allowed¶47

Aadhya v. the Chairman

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2025RFA/1982/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (S.R. Krishna Kumar J, 25.03.2025) allows RFA No. 1982 of 2023 under S.96 CPC: suit for declaration changing name from 'Aadhya' to 'Aadhya Rao' and mandatory injunction to correct Marks Cards/Certificates issued by CBSE, Karnataka PU Board and colleges decreed; dismissal by VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.255/2022 (judgment/decree dated 02.11.2022) set aside; unrebuted evidence of PW-1 established surname 'Rao'; name-change declaration; correction of educational records.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and decree dated 02.11.2022 in O.S.No.255/2022 set aside; suit decreed as prayed for by the appellant-plaintiff (declaration that her name be shown as 'Aadhya Rao' instead of 'Aadhya' and consequential corrections in Marks Cards/Certificates). ¶47

Aadhya Vs the Chairman — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant–plaintiff.

¶37

Court's answer

The pleadings and evidence adduced by the appellant–plaintiff had remained unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged; the respondents–defendants had not adduced any evidence to rebut her claim.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The cumulative effect of the evidence is sufficient to indicate that the appellant's surname was 'Rao', to be incorporated along with her name 'Aadhya'; consequently her name is to be shown as 'Aadhya Rao' instead of 'Aadhya' in all her records, documents, Certificates and Marks Cards maintained and issued by the respondents.

¶39

Key takeaways

The Trial Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the suit; the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside by this Court and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff deserves to be decreed in her favour.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC by an 18-year-old plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2022 in O.S.No.255/2022 (VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) dismissing her suit for declaration that her name henceforth be shown as 'Aadhya Rao' instead of 'Aadhya' and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents (CBSE, Karnataka PU Board, Regional Officer, and three colleges/schools) to correct her Marks Cards, Certificates etc. Despite pre-suit letters dated 25.08.2021 and 12.11.2021 and legal notices dated 04.08.2021 and 28.10.2021, the respondents did not comply. Before the Trial Court, CBSE alone contested by written statement; respondents 2 to 6 were placed ex-parte; the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 with Exs.P-1 to P-6. Held: the plaintiff's pleadings and evidence remained unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged, and no rebuttal evidence was adduced; the cumulative effect of the evidence establishes that her surname was 'Rao' to be incorporated along with her name 'Aadhya'. The Trial Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the suit. Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and decree set aside; suit decreed as prayed for.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:12816 RFA No. 1982 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1982 OF 2023 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AADHYA D/O K. P. PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, NO.1578/A, 25^TH CROSS, 30^TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 070.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION HEAD OFFICE, SHIKSHA KENDRA-2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI – 110 092.

¶14

THE SECRETARY THE PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BOARD, GOVT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE REGIONAL OFFICER DEGREE COLLEGE BUILDING NO.57, HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD, NEAR SAPTHAGIRI HOSPITAL, CHIMNEY HILLS, CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU - 560 090.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:12816 RFA No. 1982 of 2023

¶18

THE PRINCIPAL ST. JOSEPH,S COLLEGE, P. O. BOX 27094, 36, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL BHAGAVAN MAHAVEER JAIN COLLEGE, DIAGONAL ROAD, V V PURAM, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶20

THE PRINCIPAL PRARTHANA CENTRAL SCHOOL, NO.30, SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, CHIKKABALLASANDRA – 560 061.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.R. SHAILENDRA, ADVOCATE R1; MRS. AZRA J. DUNDGE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 TO R6 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:02.11.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO.255/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12816 RFA No. 1982 of 2023

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.255/2022 by the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff against the respondents – defendants for declaration that her name henceforth shall be ‘Aadhya Rao’ instead of ‘Aadhya’ and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to make necessary corrections in the Marks Cards, Certificates etc., issued by the respondents in favour of the appellant - plaintiff and for other reliefs was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and learned AGA for the respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. The respondent Nos.3 to 6 having been served with notice of this appeal have chosen to remain unrepresented and have not contested the appeal.

¶30

The material on record discloses that the appellant – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit interalia contending that initially, her name was shown as ‘Aadhya’ in all her records including Marks Cards, Certificates, other documents etc., and she intended to

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12816 RFA No. 1982 of 2023

¶32

add/affix her surname ‘Rao’ to her name and requested the respondents to make necessary changes in all her records by showing her name as ‘Aadhya Rao’ instead of ‘Aadhya’. It was contended that despite the request made by the appellant to the respondents to change her name from ‘Aadhya’ to ‘Aadhya Rao’ and inspite of issuance of letters dated 25.08.2021 and 12.11.2021 as well as legal notices dated 04.08.2021 and 28.10.2021, the respondents did not comply with the said request made by the plaintiff who instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendants before the Trial Court.

¶33

The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 – CBSE entered appearance before the Trial Court and contested the suit by filing its written statement. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 – defendant Nos. 2 to 6 did not enter appearance and hence, they were placed ex-parte. Appellant – plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. The Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, who is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:12816 RFA No. 1982 of 2023

¶36

The only point that arises for consideration in the

¶37

present appeal is as to whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant –plaintiff.

¶38

A perusal of the material on record clearly establishes that apart from the fact that the pleadings and evidence adduced by the appellant – plaintiff had remained unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged by the respondents – defendants, who had not adduced any evidence to rebut the claim of the appellant, the cumulative effect of the evidence adduced by

¶39

the appellant, is sufficient to indicate that the surname of the appellant was ‘Rao’ which was to be incorporated along with her name ‘Aadhya’ as a result of which, the name of the plaintiff is to be shown as ‘Aadhya Rao’ instead of ‘Aadhya’ in all her records, documents, Certificates, Marks Cards, etc., maintained and issued by the respondents. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants by passing the impugned judgment and decree which deserves to be set aside by this Court in the present appeal and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff deserves to be decreed in her favour.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:12816 RFA No. 1982 of 2023

¶42

7. In the result, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The appeal is hereby allowed .

¶45

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 02.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.255/2022 on the file of the VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-19)

¶46

is hereby set aside.

¶47

(iii) The aforesaid suit in O.S.No.255/2022 filed by the appellant-plaintiff is hereby decreed as prayed for by the appellants.

¶48

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶49

SRL/MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 147 CT:SK

Aadhya v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aadhya v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manjamma Vs Superintendent of Engineer

Smt G N Shyla Vs Sri Surendra Kumar B

M/S Shiva Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hanumanth Naik Vs Sri. Basavaraj Naik

Tanmay Anand Kuratti Vs Union of India

Smt H G Sudha Vs Sri N Mahadeva