- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35334 RFA No. 1513 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1513 OF 2023 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BALAKRISHNA T S/O LATE GUDDALATHIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. ROHITH NAYAKA B S/O BALAKRISHNA T AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO 172 BTM 1ST STAGE 16TH MAIN ROAD THAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 056. THE APPELLANT NO.2 IS THE MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN OF THE APPELLANT NO.1 SRI. BALAKRISHNA .T. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI: NAGARAJ A.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35334 RFA No. 1513 of 2023 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT, KALASIPALYA BENGALURU - 560 002 3. THE SECRETARY CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION CBSE, REGIONAL OFFICE GNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD OPP NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA CHANDRA LAYOUT EXTENSION 2ND STAGE NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072 4. THE PRINCIPAL NARAYANA E-TECHNO SCHOOL (CBSE) HULIMAVU LAKE ROAD MUTTHURAYANASWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 076 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: M.R. SHYLENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI: MILIND DANGE, AGA FOR R1 & R2. NOTICE TO R4 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.6407/2022 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION. THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35334 RFA No. 1513 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2023 passed in OS No.6407 of 2022 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.19), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs seeking declaration to change the name of plaintiff No.2 as 'Rohith Nayaka B'. 2. The suit was instituted seeking for declaration to change the name of plaintiff No.2 as 'Rohith Nayaka B' and to delete his old name 'Hariprasad' in all his school records and also in all the offices of State, Central and Quasi Government and other private offices of the records and grant such other reliefs. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff No.2 is a minor represented by his natural guardian and father -plaintiff No.1. It is stated that the name of plaintiff No.2 was indicated as 'Rohith Nayaka B' - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35334 RFA No. 1513 of 2023 from first to sixth standard at Christ School (ICSE affiliation). Thereafter, plaintiff No.2 studied from seventh to tenth Standard at Narayana E Techno School (CBSE) and his name has been recorded as 'Hariprasad' in all his school records. It is stated that the name of plaintiff No.2 was changed as 'Hariprasad' as per the horoscope. However, the concerned BBMP had issued the birth certificate as 'Rohith Nayaka B'. Plaintiff No.2 wants to change his name as 'Rohith Nayaka B' from 'Hariprasad', as his old name is not suitable to him for his educational purposes. 3. Upon consideration, the Trial Court was of the opinion that the prayer sought by the plaintiffs to change the name of plaintiff No.2 is opposed to Order VII Rule 7 of CPC and dismissed the suit. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Trial Court without assigning any reasons, refused to grant the relief sought for by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35334 RFA No. 1513 of 2023 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to change the name of plaintiff No.2 as 'Rohith Nayaka B', instead of his old name 'Hariprasad' as found in the school records from seventh to tenth standard. It is further submitted that the birth certificate - Ex.P2 clearly states that his name was 'Rohith Nayaka B' and later on it was changed as 'Hariprasad'. Plaintiff No.2 has a right to change his name as embodied under the Constitution. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that he has no objection to the relief sought by the plaintiffs/appellants to change the name from 'Hariprasad' to 'Rohith Nayaka B', provided he makes necessary representation to the concerned authority with the order of this Court. 6. The Circular issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 06.03.1998 states that they would entertain the change of name request, if it is accompanied by a decree of competent Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35334 RFA No. 1513 of 2023 7. Learned counsel on both sides rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Jigya Yadav (Minor), Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh Vs C.B.S.E. (Central Board of Secondary Education) and Ors1 (Jigya Yadav), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued directions for considering the request for change of name. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: "Whether plaintiff No.2 is entitled for correction of his name in the records and whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court warrants interference?" 9. A suit for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (8Specific Relief Act9 for short), is a recognized mode to establish civil status/identity particulars where public authorities are bound to act on such degrees. The circular by the Government of 1 Civil Appeal No.3905/2011 DD 03.06.2021 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35334 RFA No. 1513 of 2023 Karnataka dated 06.03.1998 states that they would entertain the change of name request if it is accompanied by a decree of the competent Court. In the present case, the Trial Court rejected the claim for want of sufficient grounds, appearing to treat the astrological basis as inadequate, that approach is misdirected. The existence or strength of personal reasons is not a legal touchstone. The Court9s role is to verify: a. Identity of the appellant; b. Absence of fraud/illegality/evasion; c. Compliance with procedural safeguards. Once these are satisfied, denial of relief invades the appellant9s right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. The name of plaintiff No.2 originally was 'Rohith Nayaka B' as is seen from Ex.P2 - the birth certificate and his name continued as 'Rohith Nayaka B' from first to sixth standard at Christ School (ICSE affiliation). However, due to some reasons, the name of plaintiff No.2 was indicated as 'Hariprasad' from seventh to tenth standard. Plaintiff - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35334 RFA No. 1513 of 2023 No.2 wants to change his name to 'Rohith Nayaka B' due to the reasons indicated in the plaint. 11. There being no allegation of fraud or prejudice to the third party, and the change being through standard safeguards, the impugned dismissal of the suit cannot be sustained. Taking note of the fact that there is no opposition to the suit or any challenge to the evidence of plaintiffs and there is no prejudice caused to the respondents or any person for changing the name of plaintiff No.2 as 'Rohith Nayaka B', the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants interference and point framed for consideration is answered accordingly. 12. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Regular First Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 02.03.2023 passed in OS No.6407 of 2022 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35334 RFA No. 1513 of 2023 Sessions Judge (CCH No.19), Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed. It is declared that the new name of plaintiff No.2 is 'Rohith Nayaka B', instead of 'Hariprasad'. (iv) Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are directed to correct the cumulative records of plaintiff No.2 by showing his name as 'Rohith Nayaka B'. After rectification of cumulative records by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, the respondents shall re-issue certificates by making necessary corrections as directed above. While doing so, they are required to follow the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jigya Yadav (supra). (v) Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are directed to carry out necessary corrections within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and respondent No.3 shall carry out correction within three months thereafter. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA *bgn/- CT:VS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25