- 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, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 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. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 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. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10342 RFA No. 2268 of 2024 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? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10342 RFA No. 2268 of 2024 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10342 RFA No. 2268 of 2024 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. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10342 RFA No. 2268 of 2024 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10342 RFA No. 2268 of 2024 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 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10342 RFA No. 2268 of 2024 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 RFA No. 2268 of 2024 (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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50