- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13714 RFA No. 2123 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2123/2022 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. KUM. MEGHANA D/O SRI MURTHY M R AGE: 12 YEARS 2. KUM. SHREYA D/O SRI MURTHY M R AGE: 10 YEARS SINCE BOTH DAUGHTERS ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI MURTHY M R S/O SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGE 41 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.5, 2ND CROSS SWAMY VIVEKANANDA ROAD MALLASANDRA T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560057. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GANAPATHI C. V., ADV.) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE STATE OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 6TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI ROAD NEAR K R CIRCLE BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13714 RFA No. 2123 of 2022 2. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER (NORTH) PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DIET BUILDING, P AND T ROAD 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010. 3. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR (WEST) BBMP REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS MALLESHWARAM SAMPIGE ROAD BENGALURU-560003. 4. NEW CAMBRIDGE ENGLISH SCHOOL AT PIPELINE ROAD MALLASANDRA T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560057. …RESPONDENTS (R1, R3, R4 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED SMT. AZRA J. DONDGE, AGA FOR R2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.5675/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13714 RFA No. 2123 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.5675/2021 by the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the appellants – plaintiffs against the respondents – defendants for declaration to change the name of the plaintiffs’ mother from ‘Saroja’ to ‘Puttathayamma’ and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to make necessary corrections in the Marks Cards, Certificates etc., issued by the respondents in favour of the appellants – plaintiffs and for other reliefs was dismissed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. The respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 have been served with notice of the appeal and have chosen to remain unrepresented and have not contested the appeal. 3. The material on record discloses that the appellants – plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit interalia contending that appellants’ – plaintiffs’ mother’s name was actually ‘Puttathayamma’ and not ‘Saroja’ and due to oversight and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13714 RFA No. 2123 of 2022 inadvertence and on account of clerical / typographical errors, it was shown as ‘Saroja’ instead of ‘Puttathayamma’ in the documents, records, Marks Cards, Certificates and other documents etc., of the plaintiffs and despite the request made by the appellants to the respondents to change the mother’s name of appellants – plaintiffs from ‘Saroja’ to ‘Puttathayamma’, the same was not complied with by the respondents and despite issuance of legal notice dated 14.09.2021, the plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendants before the Trial Court. 4. The respondents 1, 2 and 4 – defendants 1, 2 and 4 did not enter appearance and hence, they were placed ex-parte. Respondent No.3-defendant No.3 filed its written statement and contested the suit. Sri.Murthy M.R., the father of the appellants – plaintiffs who was also the husband of the aforesaid Puttathayamma examined himself as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked. The Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit filed by the appellants, who are before this Court by way of the present appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13714 RFA No. 2123 of 2022 5. The material on record clearly establishes that apart from the fact that the pleadings and evidence adduced by the appellants – plaintiffs had remained unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged by the respondents – defendants, who had not adduced any evidence to rebut the claim of the appellants, the cumulative effect of the evidence adduced by the appellants, is sufficient to indicate that the actual name of the appellants’- plaintiffs’ mother was ‘Puttathayamma’ and not ‘Saroja’ as wrongly and incorrectly stated in the documents, records, Certificates, Marks Cards, etc., of the appellants. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants by passing the impugned judgment and decree which deserves to be set aside by this Court in the present appeal. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 01.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.5675/2021 on the file of the VII - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13714 RFA No. 2123 of 2022 Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-19) is hereby set aside. (iii) The suit in O.S.No.5675/2021 filed by the appellants-plaintiffs is hereby decreed as prayed for by the appellants. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MPK/MDS CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49