Radhamma vs The Chief Secretary
2025 Latest Caselaw 4931 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Radhamma vs The Chief Secretary on 11 March, 2025

Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:10342
                                                            RFA No. 2268 of 2024




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                                BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
                              REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2268 OF 2024 (DEC-)
                      BETWEEN

                      RADHAMMA
                      D/O RAMANJINAPPA,
                      AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                      R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLAGE,
                      KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TAlUK,
                      TUMKURU.
                      PRESENTLY R/AT NO.79,
                      CHANDRAPPANAGAR,
                      BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
                      BENGALURU - 560 030.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. B.N. MAHESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. MAHESH K.H., ADVOCATE)
                      AND
                      1.    THE CHIEF SECRETARY
                            GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S               VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
                            BENGALURU - 560 001.
KARNATAKA

                      2.    THE SECRETARY
                            KARNATAKA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
                            M.S. BUILDING,
                            BENGALURU - 560 001.

                      3.    THE SECRETARY
                            KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION
                            EXAMINATION BOARD,
                            6TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
                            BENGALURU - 560 020.
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:10342
                                        RFA No. 2268 of 2024




4.    THE COMMISSIONER
      DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY
      EDUCATION BOARD, 18TH CROSS,
      MALLESHWARAM,
      BENGALURU - 560 020.

5.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
      PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
      HIGH SCHOOLS, BENGALURU NORTH,
      K.G. ROAD,
      BENGALURU - 560 002.

6.    THE REGISTRAR
      OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF
      EXAMINATION BOARD,
      JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS,
      BENGALURU - 560 056.

7.    THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
      NORTH RANGE, 1ST DIET BUILDING,
      P & P ROAD, 2ND STAGE,
      RAJAJINAGAR,
      BENGALURU - 560 010.

8.    THE HEAD MASTER
      GOVT. JUNIOR COLLEGE FOR BOYS,
      18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
      BENGALURU- 560 020.

9.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
      PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
      PUC EXAMINATION,
      BENGALURU NORTH,
      MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS,
      BENGALURU - 560 020.

10.   THE PRINCIPAL
      SRI JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA COLLEGE,
      RACE COURSE ROAD,
      BENGALURU - 560 009.
                                 -3-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:10342
                                            RFA No. 2268 of 2024




11.   THE PRINCIPAL
      SRI JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA COLLEGE
      OF SCIENCE, ARTS & COMMERCE,
      RACE COURSE ROAD,
      BENGALURU - 560 009
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. AZRA J. DUNDGE, AGA FOR R1 TO R5, R7 TO R9.)

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2020 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT
NO.9206 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION AND DIRECTION.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR


                         ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff No.1 in Original Suit

No.9206 of 2018 on the file of the XVII Addl. City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as

'Trial Court'), challenging the judgment and decree dated

01.02.2020, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration

that the name of the plaintiff No.1 is Radhamma R. instead of

Radhamma S. and consequently to direct the

respondent/defendants to rectify the official records and issue

corrected certificates was dismissed by the Trial Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:10342

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

Additional Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5 and 7

to 9 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the

appellant/plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of plaintiff No.2-

Ramanjinappa. Both the appellant/plaintiff No.1 and her father

plaintiff No.2 instituted the instant suit against the

respondent/defendants for declaration and other reliefs. During the

pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.2-Ramanjinappa having

expired, the appellant/plaintiff No.1 continued the suit as his legal

heir/representative. The respondents 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 filed written

statement and contested the suit, pursuant to which, the Trial Court

framed the following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the name of the plaintiff No.1 is Radhamma R. and so also the name of the plaintiff No.2 is Ramanjinappa?

2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendants have refused to change the name of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 as Radhamma R. and Ramanjinappa in the school records of plaintiff No.1?

3) Whether the defendant No.1 to 5 & 7 to 9 prove that the suit of the plaintiff is not at all maintainable in law?

NC: 2025:KHC:10342

4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the plaint?

5) What order or decree?"

4. The plaintiffs examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-

2 and produced 31 documents which were marked as Exhibits P1

to P31. On the other hand defendants cross-examined PW-1 and

PW-2 but, did not adduce oral or documentary evidence in support

of their defense.

5. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court came to the

conclusion that, though the appellant/plaintiff No.1 claimed that her

name was Radhamma R. and not Radhamma S., since, the

evidence adduced by the appellant/plaintiffs shows that the name

of the plaintiff No.1 is Radhamma (without any initial), the claim of

the plaintiff No.1 could not be accepted and consequently

proceeded to dismiss the suit by holding as under:

"REASONS

8. Issue No.1 & 2:- Since these issues are inter-related then they are hereby discussed commonly in order to avoid repetition of facts.

9. The case of the plaintiffs is that the name of plaintiff No.1 is Radhamma R. and the name of plaintiff No.2 is Ramanjinappa, but the same has been wrongly entered in the school records of the

NC: 2025:KHC:10342

plaintiff No.1 as Radhamma S. and that of plaintiff No.2 as Subramani.

10. And in order to prove the above issues, though the plaintiff No.1 & 2 got themselves examined as P.W.1 & 2 and got marked the documents at Ex. P1 to P31, the same do not hold any water as the documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to P3/SSLC & PUC marks cards, Ex.P5 to P8/B.A. marks cards does not show the name of the plaintiff No.1 as Radhamma R. & so also does not show the name of plaintiff No.2 as Ramanjinappa.

11. Even though the plaintiffs have allegedly produced an Aadhaar card at Ex.P4, the same is of no help to the case of the plaintiffs as it also does not show the name of the plaintiff No.1 as Radhamma R., but on the other hand it simply shows that it pertains to one Radhamma D/o Ramanjinappa.

12. And since the said plaintiffs have neither pleaded nor produced any cogent documentary evidence to prove that the name of the plaintiff No.1 is Radhamma R. and that of plaintiff No.2 as Ramanjinappa and since it is not at all the case of the plaintiffs that on such and such a date they have got changed their names as Radhamma R. and Ramanjinappa instead of Radhamma S. and Subramani M. though the proper procedure of law [before any Notary public and so got it published in any newspaper or plaintiff No.1/ PW.1 at page-4 of her cross-examination has clearly admitted that her father has not at all got changed his name then it has to be held in unequivocal terms that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the facts of issue No.1 & 2 and accordingly I have answered these issues in the negative.

NC: 2025:KHC:10342

13. Issue No.3:- And as regards the maintainability of the present suit is concerned, since the defendant No.1 to 5, 7 to 9 have specifically contended in their written statement that any rectification in the school records cannot be changed except through the decree of a court then I have answered this issue No.3 in the negative.

14. Issue No.4:- Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the name of the plaintiff No.1 is Radhamma R. and that of plaintiff No.2 is Ramanjinappa with cogent material evidence then the plaintiffs are not at all entitled to any reliefs as sought by them and accordingly I have answered this issue No.4 in the negative.

15. Issue No.5:- In view of the discussion made on issue No.1 to 4 and further holding issue No.1 to 4 in the negative, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The suit of the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration and direction against the defendants is hereby dismissed.

No costs.

Draw a decree accordingly."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff No.1 submits

that the material on record comprising of oral and documentary

evidence clearly indicate that the name of the appellant/plaintiff

No.1 was Radhamma (without any initial) and not either

Radhamma R. or Radhammma S. and consequently, rather than

driving the appellant/plaintiff No.1 to file a separate suit, the

NC: 2025:KHC:10342

impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court may be

set-aside and the relief may be moulded in favour of the

appellant/plaintiff No.1, decreeing the suit by showing her name as

Radhamma (without any initial) D/o Ramanjinappa by issuing

necessary consequential directions to the respondent/defendants

in this regard.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for

the respondents 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 submit that there is no merit in

the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed.

8. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the

appellant/plaintiff No.1, a perusal of the material on record will

indicate that the name of the appellant/plaintiff No.1 is shown as

Radhamma (without any initial) D/o Ramanjinappa and not either

Radhamma R. or Radhamma S. as contended before the Trial

Court. The said fact is apparent from the finding recorded by the

Trial Court in the impugned judgment and decree referred to

above.

9. Under these circumstance, in order to avoid multiplicity of

proceedings and to ensure that the appellant/plaintiff No.1 is not

NC: 2025:KHC:10342

driven to one more round of litigation, I deem it just and appropriate

to mould the relief by exercising my powers under Sections 107

and 151 read with Order VII Rule 7 and Order XLI Rule 33 of the

Code of Civil Procedure and set-aside the impugned judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court and in order to do substantial

justice, decree the suit in favour of the appellant/plaintiff No.1 by

showing her name as Radhamma (without any initial) D/o

Ramanjinappa together with issuing necessary consequential

directions to the respondents in this regard.

10. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The appeal is hereby allowed;

2) The impugned judgment and decree dated 01.02.2020 passed in Original Suit No.9206 of 2018 on the file of the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set-aside;

3) The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff No.1 against the respondent/ defendants as under:

(a) The plaintiff No.1 is declared to be known as Radhamma D/o Ramanjinappa.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10342

(b) The respondent/defendants are directed to carryout necessary corrections showing the name of the appellant/plaintiff No.1 as Radhamma D/o Ramanjinappa in all the records maintained by the defendants.

(c) The respondent/defendants are hereby directed to carryout the necessary changes in the records by showing the name of the appellant/plaintiff No.1 as Radhamma D/o Ramanjinappa and issue necessary certificate/marks cards etc., in favour of the appellant/plaintiff No.1 immediately upon receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

ARK