Karnataka High Court
Sri C M Rajendra vs The Chief Secretary on 5 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44689
RSA No. 380 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.380 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C.M. RAJENDRA
S/O LATE MUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUBASH NAGAR
K.R.NAGAR TOWN-571 602.
2. SPOORTHI C.R.,
D/O C.M. RAJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUBASH NAGAR
K.R. NAGAR TOWN-571 602.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. THYAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA EDUCATION EXAMINATION
BOARD, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.
3. THE DIRECTOR
PRE-UNIVERSITY, PALACE ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44689
RSA No. 380 of 2024
HC-KAR
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
MYSURU-571 602.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF UNDERGRADUATE
MYSURU-571 602.
6. THE EDUCATION OFFICER
PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
K.R. NAGAR
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.
7. THE HEAD MASTER
KANNADA AND ENGLISH HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
LIONS SCHOOL, K.R.NAGAR TOWN,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.
8. THE HEAD MASTER
ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL
LIONS SCHOOL,
K.R. NAGAR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.
9. THE PRINCIPAL
BRIGHT P.U.COLLEGE
K.R. NAGAR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1, R3 TO 6)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2023.
PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R. NAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44689
RSA No. 380 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
21.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.298/2019 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R. NAGARA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs is that second plaintiff is represented through a natural guardian first plaintiff, who is the father has filed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction contending that the second plaintiff is minor and the first plaintiff's father Sri Muddappa at the time of admitting the second plaintiff to school, inspite of second plaintiff's name being C.R.Nuthan, inadvertently in the school records given the name as C.R.Spoorthi. The 7th defendant got -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44689 RSA No. 380 of 2024 HC-KAR admitted the second plaintiff as student in their school by mentioning the name of second plaintiff as C.R.Spoorthi. The second plaintiff's grand-father was calling second plaintiff as C.R.Spoorthi, instead of C.R.Nuthan and it was the mistake done by his grand-father and the same has to be changed as C.R.Nuthan, instead of C.R.Spoorthi. Hence, filed the petition and sought for the relief.
4. Inspite of suit summons being served to defendant Nos.1 to 9, the defendants did not appear and contest the matter.
5. The first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and has examined his mother as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P16.
6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence while seeking the relief of declaration for change of name relied upon the judgment of this Court in SMT. DORASANAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, wherein this Court held that to seek a relief of declaration, declaring change of name, the Change of Name Act provides that name of the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44689 RSA No. 380 of 2024 HC-KAR student upto secondary level also can be changed by getting judgment and decree from the jurisdictional Court and the name cannot be changed in the school records. When the student attains majority and if he/she has an intention to change his/her name, the intention must be disclosed through an affidavit sworn to before the Court Officer/Notary or Magistrate in a Stamp Paper of Rs.20/- and the same has to be published in two leading newspapers to make known to the general public regarding change of name and the same is not complied. In paragraph No.12 of the judgment, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the mandatory provision is not complied and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief and dismissed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, R.A.No.1/2022 is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the oral and documentary evidence and also the grounds which have been urged, formulated the point whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, answered -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44689 RSA No. 380 of 2024 HC-KAR the point as 'negative and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error and counsel would submit that by mentioning the name as C.R.Spoorthi, the second plaintiff is facing gender problem and the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have taken note of the same and committed an error in dismissing the suit and also the appeal. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.
9. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 would submit that when the suit is filed for the relief of declaration for change of name, the plaintiffs ought to have complied with the mandatory provisions under the law and the same has not been complied with. Hence, the Trial Court taken note of the same in paragraph No.12 and the First Appellate Court also reaffirmed -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44689 RSA No. 380 of 2024 HC-KAR the same and question of admitting the second appeal does not arise.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 and also having perused the material on record, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration to change the name of appellant No.2. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings and evidence comes to the conclusion that mandatory provision has not been complied with. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also fairly admits that mandatory provision is not complied with. When such being the case, the question of granting the relief of declaration does not arise in the absence of compliance of mandatory provisions. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law. However, at this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeks liberty of this Court to permit him to approach the Court after the compliance of the mandatory provisions for change of name by filing fresh suit.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:44689 RSA No. 380 of 2024 HC-KAR Accordingly, the regular second appeal is dismissed with liberty as sought by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47