Karnataka High Court
Pooja Bai A vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
RSA No. 1775 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1775 OF 2023 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. POOJA BAI A.,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
MINOR, REP. BY HIS FATHER
AND NEXT FRIEND M. ANNAPPA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O MOORTHI NAIKA,
R/AT NEELADRI HOUSE,
NEAR BHUVANENDRA COLLEGE,
KARKALA KASBA VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK-574104.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARATH P.H., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATADRI,
MANIPAL-576101.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
UDUPI JILLA PANCHAYAT,
EDUCATION DEPT. JILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
RAJATADRI, MANIPAL-576101.
3. THE HEAD MASTER
GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
DODDABUKKA SAGARA,
BISALEHALLI POST,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
RSA No. 1775 of 2023
KADOOR TALUK,
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.
4. THE HEAD MASTER
SUNDAR PURANIK MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL,
PERVAJE, BHUVANENDRA COLLEGE ROAD,
KARKALA KASBA VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK-574104.
5. THE COMMISSIONER
(REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS)
CITY MINICIPALITY, CHIKAMAGALUR,
CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.5/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND AJM, KARKALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2022
PASSED IN OS NO.105/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, KARKALA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned
AGA for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 with consent.
2. This second appeal is filed against the current
finding in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.105/2019, wherein the
prayer is sought to change the name of the minor petitioner,
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
who filed the suit through her father/next friend seeking the
relief of declaration that her correct name is 'Pooja Bai A.', and
her father's correct name is 'Annappa Naika M.' and rectify the
same in her school records. While seeking such a relief, it is
contended that plaintiff has been in care and custody of her
father. The name of the mother of plaintiff is Smt. Geetha Bai
alias Haseena alias Asha. The plaintiff is a Hindu by birth and
has been brought up as a Hindu. Her parents are Hindus. She
belongs to Lambani Scheduled Caste Community. The correct
name of the plaintiff's father 'Annappa Naika M.', is also
supported by concerned documents such as Voter Card,
Aadhaar Card, Ration Card etc. He is an original resident of
Doddabukka Sagara, Kadoor Taluk, Chikkamagalur District. He
married the aforesaid Smt. Geetha Bai alias Haseena alias
Asha, who was originally a Muslim. She after marriage
embraced Hinduism and assumed a Hindu name "Geetha Bai"
and has been living with the plaintiff's father as his wife and as
a Hindu and has been living as a Hindu. She begot two
children, who were born Hindus and have been brought up as
Hindus. The plaintiff was born on 31.07.2006 and brought up
as a Hindu and has been living as a Hindu.
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
3. It is contended that at the time of her birth, the
plaintiff's father and his wife were residing in the house of
wife's parents in Kadoor, Chikkamagalur Taluk for sometime.
During the absence of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff was
admitted to the defendant No.3-school by her grand-father
Smt. Khurshid Bi. The said Smt. Khurshid Bi was not an
educated person. She used to informally and affectionately call
plaintiff's father as Khaleel instead of Annappa Naika and
plaintiff as Nazia instead of Pooja. Under the said
circumstances, the said Smt. Khurshid Bi gave the same names
Khaleel and Nazia at the time of admission of plaintiff in the
defendant No.3-school by bonafide inadvertent mistake,
forgetting that the plaintiff is a Hindu and her father is also a
Hindu, bearing Hindu names. The said informal names Khaleel
and Nazia were inadvertently entered by the school authority
without further verification, which names continued even to this
day in the school records. Since the plaintiff's father is not an
educated or knowledgeable person, so far he could not either
discover or realize the said errors and mistakes in the school
records. Now having realized the same, on being pointed out
by the elders in his family, he has taken steps for correction of
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
the names. Moreover, the Birth Certificate and the Aadhaar
Card of the plaintiff bears the name correctly as Pooja Bai A.,
D/o. Annappa Naika. The plaintiff's father accordingly
approached the concerned schools for the purpose of correction
and rewriting name as Pooja Bai A., in the place of Nazia and
the father's name as Annappa Naika M., in the place of Khaleel
wherever they are found. He also made an oral request in the
concerned schools. But they refused to oblige citing rules.
Hence, plaintiff's father was constrained to issue legal notice to
the defendants and filed the suit for the relief of correction of
name in the school records.
4. The defendant No.2 appeared through Assistant
Government Pleader on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and filed
their written statement denying the plea taken in the plaint and
contended that according to notification No.ED/100/DTB/2014
dated 26.10.2015 issued by the Government, since the plaintiff
completed her High School education, her name and her
father's name cannot be rectified in the school records. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of suit. The defendant No.5 also filed the
written statement stating that these defendants are unaware of
all the matters addressed in the plaint and there was no record
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
because it is registered in Kadoor Municipal Office and this
Court has no jurisdiction.
5. The Trial Court, taking note of the pleadings of the
parties, framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that her correct name is
'Pooja Bai A.' and same has been wrongly entered in
her school records as 'Nazia'?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that her father's correct
name is 'Annappa Naika M.' and same has been
wrongly entered in her school records as 'Khaleel'?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought
for?
4. What Order or decree?"
6. The plaintiff, in order to prove her case, examined
her father as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1
to P10. On the other hand, Sri Nagaraja M. from the Office of
the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Udupi was examined
as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D5.
7. The Trial Court taking note of both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, an appeal is filed
in R.A.No.5 of 2022. The First Appellate Court having
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
reassessed the material on record, confirmed the Judgment of
the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of
both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this
Court.
8. The main contention urged before this Court
framing the substantial question of law is whether the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court are justified in dismissing the
suit of the plaintiff in consideration of irrelevant material and in
non-consideration of evidence and relevant materials placed on
record by the appellant?
9. This Court, having heard the matter in part earlier,
heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for
respondent Nos.1 to 5, instead of admitting the second appeal,
since the question involved before the Court is very narrow i.e.,
with regard to change of name in the school records, the
reason assigned before the Trial Court is that the father of the
plaintiff is a Hindu by birth and he married a Muslim women
and her name is also changed as 'Geetha Bai', subsequent to
the marriage and the plaintiff was taken care of by the grand-
mother one Smt. Khurshid Bi and while admitting the plaintiff
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
to the school, her name was given as Nazia and father name as
Khaleel and only based on the information given by the grand-
mother, the name was entered in the school records as Nazia.
10. The plaintiff, in order to prove the case, produced
the documents as Exs.P1 to P10 i.e., office copy of the notice
issued to the defendants dated 30.08.2018, postal
acknowledgement, endorsement given by the second defendant
dated 11.09.2018, letter given by the fourth defendant dated
14.09.2018, application submitted to BEO, Aadhaar card of
plaintiff, Birth Certificate of Nazia dated 29.12.2006 and Study
Certificate dated 18.08.2018. The defendants have also
produced the documents of Transfer Certificate as Ex.D1,
Admission Register Extract maintained by the fourth defendant
as Ex.D2, C.C. of Transfer Certificate issued by the fourth
defendant as Ex.D3 and Admission Register Extracts for the
years 2017-2018 and 2019-2020 as Exs.D4 and D5.
11. Having perused the material on record, Ex.P8 is the
Aadhaar card of plaintiff which shows the name of the plaintiff
as 'Pooja Bai A.', and not 'Nazia'. This Court also would like to
rely upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in JIGYA YADAV
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
(MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER HARI SINGH
VS. C.B.S.E. (CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION) & ORS. reported in 2021 (7) SCC 535,
wherein the Apex Court also discussed in detail regarding
change of name is concerned, particularly in Paragraph No.171,
it is observed that, as regards request for "change" of
particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes
that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE
certificate are not consistent with the school records. Such a
request could be made in two different situations. The first is
on the basis of public documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar
Card/Election Card, etc., and to incorporate change in the CBSE
certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when
the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at
a later point of time. That change need not be backed by
public documents pertaining to the candidate. In Paragraph
No.171(a), reverting to the first category, as noted earlier,
detailed discussion is made. In Paragraph No.171(b), as
regards latter situation where the change is to be effected on
the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school
record or public document, the request may be entertained
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law
in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including
surrender/return or original certificate (or duplicate original
certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon
payment of prescribed fees.
12. In Paragraph No.172, the Apex Court comes to the
conclusion that, in exercise of our plenary jurisdiction, we direct
the CBSE to process the applications for correction or change,
as the case may be, in the certificate issued by it in the
respective cases under consideration. Even other pending
applications and future applications for such request be
processed on the same lines and in particular the conclusion
and directions recorded hitherto in Paragraph Nos.170 and 171,
as may be applicable, until amendment of relevant Byelaws.
Additionally, the CBSE shall take immediate steps to amend its
relevant Byelaws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for
recording correction or change, as the case may be, in the
certificates already issued or to be issued by it.
13. Having considered the principles laid down in the
Judgment of the Apex Court, in the present case on hand also,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
it is specifically pleaded by the plaintiff before the Trial Court
that, by inadvertence, the grand-mother has given the wrong
name of the plaintiff in the school. The document at Ex.P8-
Aadhaar Card bears the name of the plaintiff as 'Pooja Bai A.'
and father name is mentioned as 'Annappa Naika M.'. When
such being the case, when the explanation is given before the
Trial Court, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of the
same, particularly Ex.P8 and also the fact that father is a Hindu
by birth. The material also discloses that he married a Hindu
women and she changed her name as 'Smt. Geetha Bai alias
Haseena alias Asha' and the fact that plaintiff is represented by
her father in the suit is not in dispute and the Trial Court ought
to have considered the same. The Apex Court also discussed
with regard to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India that
it is the choice of a person to change the name or otherwise, it
infringes the right guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and
19(1)(a), Right to Dignity.
14. In the case on hand also, the plaintiff intends to
change her name. The Apex Court also discussed with regard
to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and identity of the person
is protected under Article 19(1)(g) as envisaged in the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
Constitution. When such detailed discussion is made, if the
prayer of the plaintiff is declined, the same violates Articles
19(1)(g) and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and such discussion
was also made in the Judgment and also taken note of factual
aspects of the case. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court committed an error in not considering the material on
record in proper perspective and ought to have considered the
material on record under what circumstances, the name of the
plaintiff was entered in the school records. Hence, the
Judgment and decree of the Trial Court as well as the
confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court is set aside in
view of the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex
Court referred (supra) and answered substantial question of
law as 'affirmative'.
15. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The regular second appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.105/2019 and also Judgment and decree
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41734
passed in R.A.No.5/2022 are set aside.
Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.105/2019 is
allowed and the Judgment and decree is granted as
prayed in O.S.No.105/2019.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
