Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 431 (MAD)

Jyothi Bhelliappa v. P. M. Belliappa

2007-02-03

S.ASHOK KUMAR

body2007
Judgment :- This revision has been preferred by the defendant as against the dismissal of the I.A., filed for rejecting the Plaint. 2. The revision petitioner/defendant is a retired Professor writing many Articles in the leading Dailies like The Hindu in the name of "Jyoti Belliappa". The respondent/plaintiff, "Belliappa", is a retired chief Secretary aged 70 years. The revision petitioner is the former wife and they got divorced after 12 years after their marriage. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to use the plaintiffs name either as a suffix or as a prefix and for permanent injunction restraining her from using his name. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that after dissolution of marriage, the defendant has no locus standi to continue to suffix the name of Belliappa after her name. .4. The case of the revision petitioner/defendant is that she was the wife of the respondent/plaintiff. They got married on 30.9.1985 and they were separated by a divorce on 7. 2003. As in common usage she added the name of the husband by suffixing after the marriage. It was in the routine practice in all the correspondence to suffix the name of Belliappa after her name as Jyothi. There is no any outright ban or prohibition for using the name of person either known or unknown by suffixing with their name according to the whims and fancies. The defendant having suffixed the name of Belliappa will not amount to an infringement of the rights of the plaintiff. Therefore she filed the present I.A., for rejection of the plaint. 5. The plaintiff resisted the said I.A., contending that the plaint ought not to be rejected summarily and the relief’s sought for in the plaint have to be decided only after a full-fledged trial. Accepting the contentions of the plaintiff, the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, dismissed the said I.A., Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the suit is barred under Section 9 CPC as the suit is not of a civil nature and the principal question therein does not relate to a civil right and hence the same is not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the suit is barred under Section 9 CPC as the suit is not of a civil nature and the principal question therein does not relate to a civil right and hence the same is not maintainable. To grant the relief of declaration as prayed for in the suit, the plaintiff must establish that he has a legal right over his own name; he has to show that there can be an association between two persons simply because they have a common name; and he has to show how he is injured by the defendants use of his name. 7. On the other hand Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that in paragraphs 5,6,8 and 9 of the Plaint the problems faced by the plaintiff by the defendants use of his name has been stated which gives rise for the cause of action. He relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 2001 (PMA Metropolitan V. Moran Mar Marthoma) in support of his contention that all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred shall not be rejected. According to the learned counsel, the word civil nature as per the definitions in the legal dictionaries "relating to the citizen as an individual; civil rights". .8. Of course the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reported in AIR 1961 SC 1720 and AIR 1959 AP 307 are relating to rights claimed for religious rites and ceremonies for which a suit is not maintainable before the Civil Courts. A perusal of Section 9 CPC would makes it clear that the suit must be of a civil nature. Even according to the plaintiff, the provision under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive to file the suit for declaration as the name of a person is not a legal character or right or property. Even as per Section 9 CPC, the plaint averments must establish that there exists an issue relating to civil rights of the parties in the suit. 9. Even as per Section 9 CPC, the plaint averments must establish that there exists an issue relating to civil rights of the parties in the suit. 9. A reading of the plaint averments would show that the plaintiff alleges that the defendant has not intimated about the divorce to his superiors in her college; did not make necessary corrections as to her marital status in the official records, such as driving licence, passport etc., But these are all not of any civil rights and it is for the defendant to face any consequences from the concerned authorities/departments for her omissions. The only solitary inconvenience faced by the plaintiff is that both of them are having a bank account and locker in the Standard Chartered Bank, Haddows Road Branch, Chennai-6 and since the defendant did not inform the Bank about the instructions for payment of locker rent after the divorce, the Bank inadvertently debited the amount towards the locker rent from the account of the plaintiff and only with great difficulty the plaintiff managed to get the debit reversed. On this aspect, the negligence can be attributed equally on the plaintiff as after the divorce the responsibility is on him also to inform the concerned authorities/departments/banks as to the fact of divorce particularly where they have jointly executed any bond/documents/loans/mortgages etc., clarifying the position and liability of each of them and to take necessary legal steps, if any, required if he wants to prevent such proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied upon the judgment of V.R.Krishna Iyer reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 (Arivandandm Vs. Satyapal), wherein it has been held as follows:- "5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsifs Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and merit less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O.VII R.11, CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and merit less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O.VII R.11, CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under O.X CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men (Ch.XI) and must be triggered against them In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of mahatma Gandhi "it is dangerous to be too good". 11. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that in the particular area of the respondents native place, almost every alternative house will have the name of Belliappa and therefore the name Belliappa is not an exclusive name belonging to the plaintiff alone. Therefore, the plaintiff, being an individual cannot claim any copyright for his name "Belliappa". Even according to the plaintiff, the maiden name of the defendant is Jyoti Nair and after her marriage with one K.P.Jain she changed her name as Jyoti Jain and after separation from him by Gazette Notification she reverted back to her original name and after marriage with the plaintiff she changed her name as Jyoti Belliappa. Therefore it is clear that it is the discretion of the defendant to effect any change in her name by making Gazette Notification. Thus the averments in the plaint do not fall within the ambit of "civil nature" or the incidents alleged can be construed as "cause of action" for instituting the suit. 12. In the result, the CRP is allowed setting aside the order of the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai passed in I.A.No.18308 of 2004 in O.S.No.3665 of 2004 and the trial court is directed to reject the plaint by striking off the same from the suit register.