031-NLR-NLR-V-76-S.-M.-U.-RUWANPURA-Appellant-and-THE-REGISTRAR-GENERAL-and-3-others-Repsonde.pdf
H. N. G.' FERNANDO, 0. J.—Wickremanayake v. Simon Appu
167
Present: Pathirana, J., and Rajaratnam, J.
S. M. U. RUWANPURA, Appellant, and THEREGISTRAR-GENERAL and 3 others, Respondents
S. G. 2/72—D. G. Batnapura, 3603j Special
Births and Deaths Registration Act (Cap. 110}—Section 28 (7) (a)—Alteration of " ge”name thereunder—Permissibility.
Section 28 (l)(a) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act permits thealteration of a person’s name so as to include also the alteration of the “ ge ”name. The “ ge ” name is also a name like any other name.
Ar:
PEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Ratnapura.
F. N. D. Jayasuriya, with A. J. I. TiUakatvardene, for the petitioner-appellant.
N. Sinnetamby, State Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
168
PATHIRAN'A, J.—Ruwanpura v. Registrar-General
December 15, 1972. Pathirana, J.—
The Petitioner-Appellant, who is over 21 years of age, made anapplication to the District Court of Ratnapura under Section 28 (1) ofthe Births and Deaths Registration Act (Chapter 110) to alter his name incage 2 of his Birth Certificate. At the time of the registration of his birthhis name has been entered in cage 2 as KIRIMENIKE ”. His applicationis to alter the name to “ SENARATH MINUWANGODAGE UPENDRARUWANPURA ”. The first Respondent, the Registrar-General, had noobjection to this alteration.
According to the evidence given by the Petitioner at the inquiry beforethe District Judge, he has stated that he had always been known as“SENARATH MINUWAN GOD AGE UPENDRA RUWANPURA”.His Post Office Savings Bank Book, Identity Card and the Certificate ofCompetence give his name as “ SENARATH MINUWANGODAGEUPENDRA RUWANPURA ”, The learned District Judge held thatunder Section 28 (1) the Petitioner was only entitled to change his name“ KIRIMENIKE ”, He allowed the application to alter the name“KIRIMENIKE” to “UPENDRA RUWANPURA”, but refusedthe application to alter the name to “ SENARATH MINUWANGODAGEUPENDRA RUWANPURA His reasons are that according to hisparents’ Marriage Certificate his father’s “ ge ” name is “ SUBAYAMANAHLAGE UKKUHATANAGE ” and his mother’s “ ge ” name is“ UNAWATTAGE ” and therefore he held that Section 28 (1) (a) cannotbe used to alter his “ ge ” name under the pretext of altering his name.
We sought the views of the Attorney-General in this matterand we are much indebted to learned State Counsel, Mr. Sinnethamby,for the assistance he gave this Court.
Both Counsel for the Appellant and State Counsel agreed that underSection 28 (1) (a) the alteration of a name can include also the alterationof the “ ge ” name. The “ ge ” name in their view was also a name asany other name. We are in agreement with this view.
We, therefore, hold that the learned District Judge was wrong inrefusing to alter and insert the “ ge ” name “ SENARATH MINUWAN-GODAGE ”. We are, therefore, directing the learned District Judgeto insert the names “ SENARATH MINUWANGODAGE UPENDRARUWANPURA ” in cage 2 of the Birth Certificate PI.
Rajabatnam, J.— I agree.
Appeal allowed.