2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 43269
- 1 -
RFA No. 623 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
PREETHAM GOWDA M.,
S/O LATE MAYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5, RAJAMMA LAYAOUT,
UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.
&APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAKSHMISH G.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2.
THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU.
3.
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
(CBSE) NEW NO.3, OLD NO 1630 A, J BLOCK,
16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNANAGAR WEST,
CHENNAI - 600 040.
4.
R.M.S INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,
NO.18, SRINIVASA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEXT TO METRO, KANAKAPURA ROAD.
BANGALORE - 560 062.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
5.
THE DEPARTMENT OF
PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, OPP CET,
BENGALURU - 560 012.
Digitally signed by
GURURAJ D
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
RFA No. 623 of 2021
6.
SADHANA PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
CA NO.1, HAPPY VALLEY LAYOUT,
UTTARAHALLI, KENGERI MAIN ROAD,
NEAR PATALAMMA TEMPLE,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH GOWDA A., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. SHAILENDRA G., ADV., FOR R3;
R4, R5 & R6 ARE SERVED)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.06.2021 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.26509/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Challenging
judgment
and
decree
dated
02.06.2021 passed by XIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions
Judge,
Mayohall
Unit,
Bengaluru
in
O.S.no.26509/2018, this appeal is filed.
Appellant
herein
was
plaintiff
while
respondents herein were defendants respectively. For
sake of convenience, they shall hereinafter be referred
to by their rank in original suit.
- 3 -
O.S.no.26509/2018 was filed seeking for
declaration, declaring that correct name of plaintiff's
father was Mayanna instead of Madhusudan.G and for
consequential mandatory injunction and other reliefs
etc.
In plaint, it was stated that plaintiff - Master
Preetham Gowda M., was
born
in Bengaluru on
29.09.2002 and joined Swargarani school where he
studied upto II standard. It was specifically stated
that name of plaintiff's father was correctly mentioned
as Mayanna in school records. Subsequently, plaintiff
joined RMS International school - defendant no.4 and
studied
there
from
III
standard
to
X
standard.
However, at time of admission, name of plaintiff's
father was wrongly shown as Madhusudan.G in school
records, which went unnoticed. Thereafter, plaintiff
joined defendant no.6 - Institution for Pre-University
Education. Prior to filing of suit, he noticed mistake in
name of his father. Therefore, he sent notices to
defendants on 06.09.2018 calling for rectification.
However, defendant no.1 issued reply to get mistake
- 4 -
corrected first in Primary and High School records and
refused to comply. On said cause of action, suit was
filed.
Upon service of suit summons, defendants
no.2 and 3 entered appearance. Defendants no.1 and
4 to 6 did not appear. They were placed ex-parte.
However, none of them filed written statement.
Based
on
pleadings,
trial
Court
framed
following points for its consideration:
i. Whether the plaintiffs made out prima
facie grounds to decree the suit?
ii. What order or decree?
7.
Thereafter, natural guardian of plaintiff was
examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. No
evidence was led by defendants.
8.
On consideration, trial Court answered point
no.1 in negative and point no.2 by dismissing suit.
9.
Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff is in appeal.
- 5 -
10. Sri.
Lakshmish
G.,
learned
counsel
for
plaintiff-appellant submitted that only reason assigned
by trial Court for dismissal of suit was that plaintiff
failed to establish as to which institution committed
mistake in entering incorrect name of plaintiff's father.
He submitted that plaintiff had specifically pleaded in
plaint that mistake was committed by defendant no.4 -
Institution and said mistake was continued in their
records by defendants no.3 to 6. It was further
submitted that plaintiff had produced copies of Birth
certificate, Migration certificate, Marks Card, Aadhar
card,
legal
notice,
postal
receipt
and
acknowledgement, reply to legal notice and copy of
Transfer certificate as Exs.P1 to P12 which would
indicate that name of plaintiff9s father was Mayanna
and not Madhusudan.G.
11. Learned
counsel
further
submitted
that
Ex.P12 3 Transfer certificate issued by defendant no.4
3 Institution clearly states name of plaintiff9s father as
Mayanna. He submitted that defendant no.3 stated in
its reply to legal notice - Ex.P11 that name of
- 6 -
plaintiff9s father was mentioned in certificate as per
particulars furnished by school and therefore, it would
not entertain request for change of name. He further
submitted that Hon9ble Supreme Court in case of Jigya
Yadav v/s C.B.S.E (Central Board of Secondary
Education) and Ors., reported in 2021 (7) SCC 535
had issued directions for considering requests for
change of name and therefore, trial Court was not
justified in rejecting plaintiff9s request.
12. On
other
hand,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1
and Sri.G.Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent
no.3
would
submits
that
cumulative
records of school where error occurred have firstly to
be got corrected and thereafter, approach subse