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
NC: 2025:KHC:44689
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
NC: 2025:KHC:44689
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
NC: 2025:KHC:44689
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
NC: 2025:KHC:44689
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:44689
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
