Karnataka High Court
P S Vimala W/O H N Raghurama Reddy vs Kamalamma W/O Anandarama Reddy on 16 February, 2010
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT
Dated this the 16"" day _ '
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE M1i,'aUsTrcE N
% A
THE HON'BLE Mir;.1J"4z3fsTIcE-- NAGARAJ
REGULAR ;§L~_PF'E£;L bio. é°?.aof 2002
BETWEEN: H
Smt. P S Vimala-,. Major A
W/o H DJ"Raghtjara1fi:a,"Roddy
No.24, 1Victo1'ia"Layot'1t * 'V
Viveka11Vagar'Pos_t ' _
Bangalore 7 550 047 _ ""
Smt. P S JayaV1a-kshxni, Major
W/O»»€3.R Raddy _____
. "No_9"78, Main Road
II1Vstage..,V o.o:mIam
1M3/sore' " '
. Pres£;ht1y,at:Noj403, 8"' 'B'
-- Main," /-H"'Block, Jayanagar
- 'Bangalozio 3» 560 O1 1 ...Appellants
Narayana Sharma and Sri N. Nanjurldaswamy,
Advocates for A1 and A2
,, Srj T. M. Venkaia Roddy, Advocate, for A2)
AND:
Smt. Kamalamma, Major
W/0 Anandarama Raddy _
R Anandarama Reddy, Majorv'-._
S/0 Patel Rama Reddy :
Ashwathakumar
S / 0 Sn' Anandakumar Re'c:1L:éfy.
Smt. Padmamma,'--.1\/i'aj01":.'
D / 0 late P. Srinivasa.a_R'edc1y'
R€SpOnd€I£fS'«.l $014 avfé}Vr:esjVdibf1g_VV ' a
At Parap_pa1§ja' Ag.raha1_'aV
Singa;sanld_ra'«Past, 'Begur Hxobli '
Bangalpréffiouth Talulg ._ "
B_ang.alOre _ 36005.8 '
A73 it/1ai1.a§1§§c&jjIa._ ' V' '- _
S /o Abdul' Ralzmari',-.._MajOr
No. QWBIOQK
V.Jayanaga_If East
V, ._i&Ban~ga1ore 4+1 1__ _____ H _
, ' Mafiaxnjfxad IG1asim @ Chotu
2 C ._Moha_n*Lmed Ibrahim
_ "' .___N0'.'}Q;-SiaLighter House Road
' , New.Ba1;nb0o Bazaar
'"'~Banga1ore»2
A. Mohammad Nishath, Major
/ 0 Abdul Razack
V' 'No.16, Abbas Sahib Lane
N izarnuddin Mohalla
Mysore Road
Bangalore M2
8 A. Ashok Kumar
S/ o Anandarama Reddy
R / at Parappana Agrahara
Begur Hobli
Bangalore South Talukf
9 Razya Begum
W/o Fayaz
17/A,ICross _ .
Kalasipalyam New' *Extens_3_io.nv
Bangalorew2 ' V i
10 K. Akbar EeaSj}.1a 2:
S/o K...Abd15il__Satt.ar -
R/at %No.2'o '
s1ddaidh'*adad»--ll V' A'
Bangalor.e_.v2_a'7'«t.V _ _' ...Respondents
't_r3y- SII M J ..Yoge'n'd'ra"lVikram Advocate for R1;
Sri H R Afraritha l{rishna.}Vlu1'thy & Associates for R2 and R4;
Sri G.V.'P,._.Das7'& H. Rarnachandra, Advocates for R3;
Sri _Sati.sh S K Advocate for R5;
"Sr1' P. Naltai'ajan Advocate for R6 and 7;
2 _, $81-i_VlVA(jt.Govvrishankar & Ctirijashankar Advocate for R8;
R10 served. )
l' filed under section 96 r/w order 41 Rule 1 of
CPC"a.gainst' the judgment and award dated 9W8-2002 passed in
Nozaso/1986 on the file of the xx Additional City Civil
Judge, Bangalore City [CCCH 32). dismissing the suit for
and declaration.
" -NLKUMAR J ., delivered the following :
This RFA coming on for hearing this day,
i;t/
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the plaintiffs challenging; and decree of the trial Court whiehfhfas' of the plaintiffs for partition and yyseparate lpossessieiny} " " V
2. For the p1I1'7§)OS€ convenience, "the" parties are referred to as they are referred' 'i-offin th:e-o1=igin_al suit. house and twcffsitesimherelas schedule property consists of 13 items u of "lands and 'C' schedule property consists of iriovabies. Tiieffffpiaintiffs 1 and 2, defendant 1 and 4 ff'v.are'-{fieadaughtersofmone Sri P.Sr1'.nivasa Reddy. The second évtheihusband of the first defendant and defendant and'E§3--.y.are their children. Defendants 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 _ ' ,are the' purchasers.
4. P.SriniVasa Reddy's wife P.Srinivasa Reddy had separated consisting of himself and his widovifeldl in the year 1948. The farnily properties. The parties 'law of Mitakshara.
5. The to the second defendant iilairitiff No.1. was married in tha year. gilaintifl was married in the year 1959. husbands at their respective houses. is the youngest daughter of late P.Sririiyasa Reddy-______'_$he is a disabled child. The first and second def(:i1dan_t along with their children had been living with late".Pt.'Srinifirasa.Vlileddy since their marriage. The mother of the V . plairnitiffsflgdield in the year 1978. Since then, P.Srir1iVasa .r,l§eddy'sl"lhealth and mental condition became deteriorated. P'.$rir1ivasa Reddy owned Vast agricultural lands and the ceiling on agricultural property was in the offing. He executed a gift deed on 27.3.1972 conveying about 19 lé defendants 1 and 2. The said gift deed was and sham one as the deceased P.S{rinity'asa to own the said lands and enjoyed then}.
Condition of P.Srinivasa Ret1C'~;i7:.V.\"£tffte1'.V.ti"? gradualiy deteriorated. Orly-g'. he 'was Admitted to Nimhans. After a few day; At that time he was aged ab0uutl'8()_ with history of memory relnember recent things like etc., He was not knowing or taken food at all. The history was one There was concious irritable itmp.ai:rme'nt of If imrn_edit.ate and recent memory coupled with .beh.avi.0Vt1rabie"*changes in the form of obsession disoriented 'VI"hi:s"_'»r:on:d'ition continued till his death. V * Defendants I and 2 who continued to live with the _' deeeased father of plaintiffs were exercising lot of undue '"infiuence which became acute after the death of plaintiffs K/it mother. The defendants 1 and 2 with a View to gain and deprive the plaintiffs particularly their due share in the movable 'anc:liAii1lrnoyab1eilate it P. Srinivasa Reddy thought of Alleonxzertina,f'_so1ne .1 properties to cash so that thel"sa"ri1e could_l_be and doing so, they did converttheyg'o'ld:§:e'\ye'1l.ery into"ca'sh. Further, the plaintiffs learnt in zibotttltlie February 1985 the defendants 3/laiid 4% acres of land in Sy. No. €131/'l2_,A at item No.4 of schedule 'I3' knowing_the"lniental"~and physical condition of deceased P. Srinivasa Reddyl got paper publication to prevent the said alienation and issued notices to defendants 5 to
7. defendants .1____and 2 got replies issued and published in the .,ga1nr:'~o1'«E%l."--S_rinivasa Reddy when he was not in a position in the matter. It was also learnt that V . deien'c1an--.lts ilto 4 got up a Will in the month of February 1985 .r,pu,rporting to have been executed by late P. Srinivasa Reddy tigeterrns of which are inequitable and highly advantageous to
--. thern. The said Will is invalid and inoperative as the same was not executed out of the free will of the testator state was as described in the above deceased father of the plaintiffs blfullyl:t1nder_jil. influence of defendants 1 to not confer any right on anybodlfias llLate Srinivasa Reddy sho'uld" be conis'id'eredll:'as_having'died intestate. Hence, each of the plaintiffsll share in the rnoveable and the deceased P. Srinivasa described fully in the schedu,les~,. ll have detailed knowledge about ll'the* Jfrley have been living with the deceased The plaintiffs are in constructive possession of th'e--VsVcheciule properties along with defendants 1
34. and 21*" defendants have received amount in respectllofuacqtiisition of lands measuring 5 acres 18 guntas in V . Sy. and 69/ 1 of Parappana Agrahara Village covered alleged so called gift deed in or about the year 1981-82 .1 and the said defendants are liable to account for the same and "pay the share of the plaintiffs and their due share in the it oflP.Srinivasa Reddy and his wife as correct. revised award or the enhancement made or to~~.be,1_nafde ..in respect of the said acquired lands. The plaintil'fs.V.ha$fe this suit for general partition of t:he"Jest'ate ..oli".th-eir.:_lat_eVfather7P. ii. Srinivasa Reddy since the defendants land 4 co'lli1sion'*x_xrith defendants 2 and 3 acting and rights of the plaintiffs. V h it it I
7. After: defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 filed a contended that, the plaintiffs and defclldaiitsyhl 1ll'*t"'arid'}2I*" defendants' other sons and dalupghtersv inade parties to the suit whose presence llivecessarybl xiii order to enable this Court to effectlially and "'eonf_1_pletely adjudicate upon and settle all qt1es_tions«.imrolved in the suit without whose presence such an not possible. However, they did not dispute V -- the lrelationhship set out in the plaint. They admitted the date of IO
8. The said P.Srinivasa Reddy had and all the movable and immovable properties possessed by him including those giftedby get ' T deed dated 19-4-1972 and dated 232-1985 and agreed toAhe;_s.0l--dlt§_) deferidants V 6, and 7 under the agre,e.ment&V.dateL_d--ll-:2--lQS5'va11d§referred to in the General Power of executed by him appointi11.g.as»._ his grand son A. Ashok Kumar to this suit, and, including...Vt_h"0sl_e 'A' and 'ET Schedules appended : .."were the self--acquisitions of P. Srinivasa Jthem absolutely and exclusively andy,.g§j?l\/ler.which" had absolute and unrestricted powers of :byj:W.ay of gift, sale and transfer of any kind. P. dlSritiiy'asa:llRedd:y'herformed his 15* daughtei"s marriage with 20¢' defeiadantl11251951. He had no male issues. His other children Jwere plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant 4 who was a cripple. He _l Owned considerable properties. He needed male assistance to
-help him in the rnariagement of lands and his affairs. In such iv 12 Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore and Division. The claimants"__l-.::.
defendant--1, i.e. Kamalamma wasv'Jai2V\Iarded'._thei4. of Rs. 62,790--00 which was paid defendant on 30-5-1984.
9. The plaint"""i9;'_" 9 is shown as comprising of - 1 acre 30 guritas and S. V_'I't"V_is._;su!'3rriitted that S. No.58/ 8 appearstov 5 which is item 4 in the scheddie toédtiievéifig'1\1'o.:58/ 12 is described in item 9 of plaint B sci-1eduV1eV9'a.nd-'is as 00-07 guntas and in the gift dee.d}l:S';Nc.58/ as item 7 is shown as 00-19 guntas. The _a'oQve_matt.ers require to be clarified. items under the gift deed dated 19-4- 1972_ are' 'B' schedule items 3, 6 7, 8, 9 and 10 which resdpectively items 10, 3, 2, 5, 7, 4 and 6 of the schedule in _d";.he--..gii"t deed. These items are in the exclusive possession of 1/' I3 defendants l and 2 as absolute and full right, overtly, as of right and adversely to "
rights of ownership of defendants 1"afiq-- A2 fitogth;el T. them under the gift deed dated of are presently in possession absolute under? the gift deed have also been adverse possession, and, their _:fi'gll'a'.re perfected by prescription for_:ov.er of limitation. The rights in a_cduired and in respect of which hgisllylrelceivediritlie compensation and rights to " 'defendants 1 and 2 alone are entitled tolflrlldeed,._aft.ertla'e lapse of 3 years from 19-4-1972, _ whatever'rightsl thelatev Sri P. Srinivasa Reddy had to challenge gift,fo«:.i what_ever reasons assuming but without conceding 'llhfad'g:=.l'lsuch rights of challenge becanle totally
-- extinguishehdllll by virtue of the law of limitation and, his <.xI'€I1'ili"'(ll€é', if any in respect of any such challenge became .l barred by limitation. it is obvious that plaintiffs who purport to l 'lay claim by virtue of their relationship as daughters of late Sri 14 P. Srinivasa Reddy have no right either to challerigeittheivpgift, under the deed dated 19-4-1972 or to lay clairxitio er, the proceeds of the compensation g_i1Ien_1n :ee"p'ee3':';vef _ items acquired as above said, or other gifted items which beleng s'o'l.e1':Y defendants 1 and 2 as full an§d"'eorn.p1ete.'oemjuersvpvfiand whose rights thereto are possession and prescription as aforesaid,. for dismissal of the suit concerned.
' 'items 1 and 2 are the subject matter .pret:e4ed_:ag:e'r' in LRF--INA.334/79-80 and 79/7'fl9'--'8Qv___hef0i'e the Bangalore South Taluk Land .Tribt1riai.'TI'hVis~--Court has no jurisdiction to decide in regard thereto-thehsie defendants sought right to put forth defences . in respect ofithose items.
":12. On the night of 9-1-1984 on account. of diabetes, it "I3".i Srinivasa Reddy felt weak and depressed and not Wishing to 15 take chances at his advanced age of 69 years. he. admitted to National Institute of Mental I-lea'ith'::i.f1Cl.' Néufql' Sciences at Bangalore. He stayed it diagnoses was doubtful dementia the report that he had improv'--ed';*,he on the morning of 11-1-1984, Srinliifasdajé in sound state of health and minclwas examined by the Bangalore on i7«03--i984.
P.Srinivasa;Red«djt:v;%;3§ _hf1v"«"V'a:j'l.s0t:nd state of health and mind on~i~1 theagreement to sell 4 1/2 acres of land 'Nov of defendants 5, 6 and 7. P. Srinivasa viIl1.olWas..:i.i"'1 a sound state of health and mind execu«:tedl" the l'lGe-n.er_al, Power of Attorney dated 23-2-1985 s.ppoirit,irigéas:'hlis attorney, his grand son A. Ashok Kumar who as a party to this suit.
V " 13 While he was in a sound disposing state of mind and health. he executed his last Will and Testament dated 23- "2'¥1985 registered as document No.£66 of 1984-85 pages 172- "V.Therefore,':.they sought for dismissal of the suit. 2 16 177 Vol. 19 of Book of the Sub-Registrar of Bangalo"rei:'So't1th Taluk. The reasons stated in the Will for its'A.':_exec'2itione» cogent. This Will comprises of four" schedules fdescfib:edVl'v;asbj' schedules, A, B, C and D. In para lxlzlvriftten they have set out the propertlievsllfallenhtot tl1e»Vsha'r_e"of each of' the daughters.
14. Defendants :6.al'ld ga{fecfto'A'2--.u<j defendant a copy of the notice dated 3O--3'4"i"Q85 to by 21"' plaintiff. Defendants 'Jo gveceixred ...[1'C:):'13.'l" plaintiffs copy of notice dated S;',_Y2-4~lgfigsi§_§'?L;qed«.1§32'.'VVplaii1tiff to each of defendants 5, 6 and 7 . Efar;Vh'oAf land 2 received from plaintiffs the noticedated"'24~;§~4i1t38$*which was sent by plaintiffs to each of 'l V. "d_efendai<its 5,6 and;/;«AEach of the plaintiffs forwarded to each 2 a copy of the public notice published by thlernll 1f1V_ 'newspaper Deccan Herald dated 27-44985. L,/c /.
17
15. The second defendant filed an additio'ri:a1-.:"w:i;it.ten statement. It is stated therein that P.SriniVa:s'a executed a Will as stated in the.:wri--tten v:;111re'ady'; lodged. Portions belonging to late to the parties in whose favo'ur"'~h_e ha'd__agreled The buyers were in possession of the..nro.pe'rties agreed be sold by P.Srinivasa Reddy. are valid and binding on the _ip1aintiffs}" -- A.i3;laiIlttifij'xs"»'have no share or interest. in 4i45,:]il3/ 43/2A.
" . filed their written statement.
They stated Reddy who was in a sound state of health and mind--Ve2_;ecuted the agreement agreeing to sell to these deferidants 4 1/2 acres of land in Sy. No. 43/2A of lV1aldi?faladVji--l.lagelV which is shown. as plaint 'B' schedule item «V Noxl' property. Late P.Srinivasa Reddy owned this property llVflVi.Vabsolutel'y and exclusively over which he had absolute and .l unrestricted powers of disposal by way of sale. Plaintiffs never l "had any rights in respect of the property of which an agreement lb 18 was entered into between P.Srinivasa defendants on 11.2.1985. A sum of these defendants to P.Srinivasa to if Ashok Kumar in whose favour _Will towards sale consideration. V got issued by the plaintiffs are" f§p1'ied': by these defendants. Plaintiffs 'over the property which P.Sriniy_as:a favour of these defendants lpiossession of the property. These d,iefendua:nts 'possession of the land measuring 4 % aeres'--i'n Venkoji Rao Khane Madivala Village, Bangalov1'el'SnoluthTfaluk. These defendants have spent severaillv lakhs rupees and improved the said property. ?A7herefort3;«.tl:sey-.contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against tlE1e_r_s__ isynlot maintainable. 1'75" _E3f'~r'"A defendant was iinpleaded subsequently. He ' has filed-,_a:written statement. traversing the allegations made in if f{he..p"1'a111t. He did not dispute the relationship between the 19 parties. He has reiterated the stand taken by 1 and 2 in their written statement. The agreed to be sold to defendants 5:-ta' T~a$ dated 11.2.1985 will have to he is entitled for the sale proeeejlds-._pasA.lper this i defendant is the legateepof 'I.Th§ere are no other properties of late rernaiii for partition. Therefore, he alsolsgughpttllfor suit.
18: he filed an additional he has sold away the portions belonging Reddy in Sy. Nos. 45 and 43/2 as desiredl by Will. This defendant was not in p(:)SSCfvSSit)I1.'GfL'E1fii1,y portion of the property of the late P.Srinivasa No.45 or in Sy. No. 43/2. Portions . belongingiéltolllllate P.Srinivasa Reddy in the two lands to the it the portion sold away by him to Korarnangala .lVei1katappa were already in the possession of the parties to it 'whom he had agreed to sell them. This defendant has only la/i 20 executed sale deeds in their favour. The transactt_onsf"'«o.f"this defendant are quite Valid and binding on plaintiffs have no share or interest»AwI_{1ateverllvifi=:Syl:"NoVs. 43/2<mf43/2A" .é ,_~ . _ A -g,_«e
19. A memo was filed by '«defenda'n,tTsL.l:', '3 hand #3'; adopting the written state1l"fi*eV:."t» of l'de£e'n-dant' No.2 on 28.11.1990.
llpteadvitigs, the trial Court framed thetoHounngissoes@?al"
1. ll*.._Whethe_rl Vptainttffls prove that the registered gift deedl " ldat-"ed 27--o3»1972 executed by late Srinitidsa Reddy tnfavour of defendants 1 and 2 'a_ colourable an.d sham document Intended to the provisions of Land Reforms Act?
ht Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to I /4'" share each, in all the suit schedule properties?
3. Whether the plaintyfs prove that they are entitled to 1/41?' share each of the compensation received by eicamined the first plaintiff as PW1; Dr.Prabhakar as PW2 and 21 defendants 1 and 2 in respect Qf ' .44 and 69/ I of Parappana Agrahara Vi.llag.e?,: "' 5
4. Whether the defendaittsn 51*' late at. P. Srinivasa Reddy 23~2~1985 in 'fa:}:c_)ttr. of hidehlendantssfixi~-..tQ .54 hand' Plaintiffs 1 and 2? _
5. Whether defer1dan,vts"'1"ta<i4VhVj5lrQve that the suit is bad for non joinder; Qf
6. ta :prove that late P. exeefuted. an agreement of sale, E ;iai%;e}t1 1":,<:'-1.és';6 .:i'{w."+e§pé"cr of Sy.No.43/2A (Plaint V I\lahZI)vand defendants 5 to 7 have ' of Rs.2,30.000-O0 to late P. 5 and Ashok Kumar?
Whle't'heVr___defendants 5 to 7 prove that they are in I 5' possession of plaint 'B' Schedule item No.4 fiiiirsttant to the agreement, dated 11~2-1985? ' What relie/'3?
Plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claim 22 H.N.Raghuram Reddy-husband of the first p1ainti£ff_:'asf~..1v3W3. They produced 43 documents which were markeéVi:&.as" to P43. On behalf of the defendants, defendaritfAfia.n'da1'arria. Reddy was examined as DWI. $.'}_§'i deAfer1dant-Ash'o'i€fKurriar, . son of Anandarama Reddyf was also exa5.n'i:n:ed_V_VVas_:§ Narayana Reddy, an attesting \xritne'ss_Vto was examined as DW2. Dr. Rama Sviamy, the. "doctor of the testator was examined as DW3. gf~,jif.1'tf')'e of the Will was examined as 'Sathya 1'€arayaria4'an.semployee of Nimhans was '--._v'D;r}""SurVesh Rao of Nimhans was examined = ».W'»AZRiMahaboob-defendant No.5, a purchaser,VV"e.__\2Vas Vfexainiiied' as DW7. They produced 75 document~s which-.are__m.arked as Exs. D1 to D75. Court on consideration of the aforesaid if _ ora1f""and.V: 'documentary evidence on record held that the if H " .o:ijiaintiffsV'have failed to prove that the registered gift deed dated e._'l'€}V.V4;1Q72 executed by Sn' P.SriniVasa Reddy in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is a colourable and sham document 27 gift deed was executed on 19.4.1972 W}1iCi"1---.'_f\:'£':é.:ftixS.V.1' duly registered. Sri P.Srinivasa Reddy lived for afterg'g_ execution of the Will, however, he bntotic'hoo'se.:_.:to.uchaiienge it the gift deed. The piaintiffs have nohr..ight to chailetige Vthtérgaidg gift at this length of time. was acted .7ap5a,'" mutation entries were made. 4 zies o'utWo'i was the subject matter of gift .n'i.:i'.1_v'd'.i'§.€I' of acquisition proceedings. :..A'.v:ard name of the first defendant, firsts.defendant and thus the gift deed"is.jléibtedi::f¢.@Ii3O1i,lfl"iVt fiis""'iiot; a colourable or a sham document as plaintiffs and the trial Court was justified, _inv.u;51;o1cif1g.._'the said gift. In so far as the Will is conv_cerne:ci, "drafted by an advocate. An attesting witness regarding due execution of the document. A been examined to prove the sound state of
--V niind' agndiheéalth of the testator on the date of execution of the 11 tact though the testator was admitted to Nimhans on 9.1.1984 and discharged on 11.1.1984» the testator "gave evidence in a pending Land Reforms niatter before the 31 {3} Whether the property which is the subjectfnatter of agreement of sale dated 11.2.1985 partition between the daughters Reddy? ._ it it it h (4) What order?
E.<£1.t_1\I.0_-1.1 _ A A _
27. The plaint1tfszhaVe_Lpi:ea.dé'd':I.n'para--4 of the plaint that as P Srinivasa lands and the ceiling in the offing he executed conveying about 191/; acres Qf lands 2, the said gift deed was only a coloaifable and otie as the deceased P Srinivasa Reddy V own the said lands and enjoy them till his death. TE1_er'efor"e,:"i~tv_ isfiilear from the aforesaid allegation that the _ plairit.iffs..__'are.not denying the execution of gift deed executed by thafi said Srinivasa Reddy in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. gift deed was produced in the case and marked as E.xjPD1. which is dated 19.4.1972. it is also not in dispute it/ _ him Srinivlasalifyieddy. He had not met Srinivasa Reddy execution of the will. Three days prior to the Xdrialfting Siinivasa Reddy had met him for the first it _ tinieui-n c--jonne'ction with the drafting of the will. This evidence ..cf)ntrary to the evidence in the examination»in»chi.ef where ..'_lheVtie:oosed he was a leader of Congress party and popular figure in the locality and also in the congress party, Bangalore. 438
30. DW4 further deposed that as he had some_Iwo1'k in the Court and the Sub--Registrar was busy in other he went away from there, after requesting 4_ identify Srinivasa Reddy before the Suh--_RegistraVr' ' t. registration of the will. At about tithe Sub«~Registrar's office. S1'iniVasa_v'i?..eddydwas mind on the date of execution ofvwiil:
3]. In the.c1'oss¢exanj;ination,:izhas stated that he knew S1-inivasVa.,VRe:ddy fromlfl: or _4 y§a1?sfpi~1o1- to the drafting of the He 'did"lnot.. as to who introduced Srinivasa Reddy to hiin." transaction whatsoever between 40 gave the draft to the typist to get typed. He readoVer___the will before the witness for the first time before the Sub}Registrar. in cross~examination, he has stated that he read.over['tl1e:"wil1l.b before the signatures of Srinivasa Reddy 1s.'tai{en_: another' . 1 breadth, he stated that Srinivasa the will earlier. Srinivasa Reddydid n'o_tlread before signing. Shanbogue also read over the will after the was hirn. "Nobody else had read the will. Firstly:'_ *:yitjn'eVss':1fe'ad the will and secondly--Shanbogtie: Naray'~anarrrurt1'iy read over the will and it is therea.ft,e'rthevldoctir11elnt__canie to be executed. He really did not find an"y._'rea_soln_ that the will requires to be read overin the presencev of the witnesses before the document to be sign.e_d rthejtestator. in the will at the last page, one witness was'f.addvedlllby Narayana Murthy. in the presence of DW4 V . the fcorrevctiorils were made by Narayana Murthy and not by K ._1:)W:3~_,' The corrections were made when he was present. If he Author to the will, he got it typed by his typist. and his narne and address should have been typed. If he is an Author 3 48 mind has reached a certain normal stage of developnieiiietlliand then shows signs of deterioration. Dementia "maniVfestsl_l'ag.'_ decline of intellectual functions of rnemory, compfe-hension ;=mc1f« reasoning ability and emotional the lifet_ronf;AlV'lth_e patient. He admits that a pei'son_haVi.ng__denie.ntia"Wi}i'lnot be in a position to take any decis.iolnA.thy"!-lpplying.hishniind. The contents of EX.P37 the patient shows that the patient was DW3 stated that SUHIVRS3 had no occasion to know Srinivasa Reddy from
9. to - his giving evidence on the last date. Dwaisi If his evidence is belived, he has »t§eeii..takin'g of Srinivasa Reddy from 50 years. When to the NIMHANS, he Visited him. He had no t'occ«asiyor1vltei..}<11Ao'xy"'about the treatment given to Srinivasa Reddy fron'i..9. 1,; 'i'9-5A3«§lAto i1.1.1984. However. if he was really a family rClQ(3V.'E5O1'. he visited Srinivasa Reddy when he was inpatient for certainly he would have been curious to know why l V. deceased was admitted for treatment but also the treatment 49 which is given. Without finding the nature of treatrneintg given to Srinivasa Reddy for two days in the hospital, he was hale and healthy and was able to identity DW3 admits that dementia is a condition_ .7 The Contents of Ex.P37 showy from dementia. The material orrrecord and l the 2"" defendant, son-jn~1awpVA,ofl:Srinlivasalléeddyfiwere class mate in the high school continued.
Therefore, he the condition of testator on and possible to disproxzg fhw which is produced by the plaintiff of the same. From the al'ores{aid,.evidence_on record, it is difficult to believe that DW3 V the doctor, who treated the patient for 50 years and adrnit'ted at NIMHANS, hc did not bother to see and 'visit,.__S'rinivasa Reddy.
" -- . Though the burden of establishing that the testator M in a state of mind is on the propounder of the Will, it is to l/ 50 prove that condition, this Witness was exa.m_i.n_ed_toj;sjjeak about t.he mental status. The plaintiffs on "iiaj/e made an attempt to show that the'JteVs'tato_r'-.wa;s .n:ot._inV'state. of t mind. Therefore, they have produced Aordser¢§'pi~¢e;,¢ Ex.P37, the plaintiffs exam-flied» i1i'e».. i+'3x.P3"V/V, Dr.Prabhakar. He admits thati"rio.:oi'exp'a.red iifx;'P3""r: which is a case summary. It name, Srinivasa Reddy. He pr.ey)a1*ed the basis of case sheets T€1ai.fI1é: has signed the said ce1'tificat_e._.._ "t:he..sigI1ature of Dr.Suresh Rao Aroor, Who. the department of Neurology at that point 'of time?' in'cro.ss'>-examination, he has stated that he was iiolvding MPSB-SVhDegi:'ee while working in NIMHAS as a Non» PG=._»resi_dent,A."-..He did not remember to have examined the j:"iati'e_nt Srii1.iVa~sa"..Reddy or seen Srinivasa Reddy. He cannot _ give'"'--the».f'description of Srinivasa Reddy. He admits that _i3r.Suresh. Rao Aroor was a specialist and consultant in D1'.Suresh Rao Aroor was held in high esteem as Agst. Pfofessor of Neurology. He did know whether Dr.Suresh 51 Rao Aroor worked as Head of the Department of in NIMHANS. He admits that in Ex.P37 his name iv:-,.~.t:r'1:§'t"tr}.;_1"'_i*1y'v. typed below his signature. His name' is Thel ' j l word Rao was left out in Ex.P37.
document. before affixing V "doels not' Contain the seal of NII\/{I-I;_ANS, "theletter head of NIMHANS and there the seal on case summary. He did'-not month in which he dictated EX.P37. If case summary or hurry, the same will not containlithe.' dates" , _» it ' 2 "
PW2._fiirthevi' stated in his evidence that he had I V llreferred the Case sheet relating to the said patient. He did fwlaether he had verified the out--patient register re1ati«:r_1g Iaatient, Srinivasa Reddy. In the normal course, :the tyoi'st; will type the case summary and thereafter the _dres'ident doctor will sign. He did not remember whether he it carried Ex.P37 to Dr.Suresh Rao Aroor for his signature. He 52 did not remember whether Dr.Suresh Rao Aroor&..liad:.:'s--igi1ed EX.P37 in his presence. He did not remember was issued as an emergency case.~*"H.eA signature now shown to him. i.e. Rao not remember whether he from February 1984 to iv98'5KpAas..sug§eSte-id. He did not remember Wheth.er""'he-. _any other case summary on the4d'ate oiiwhich :E§<i.P37.
42. """ H evidence of PW2 on behalf of the have examined Dr.Suresh Rao Aroor as his cross--examination that he did 13.gt."1'eco11ec'i,.,asto {whether he had treated the patient by s£ifiwese_ Reddy in NH\/EHANS. He has stated that he has He stated that the signature on the name _ Suresh in EX.P37 is not his signature. The report -- :"EX.P37.'was not prepared by him. He has stated that if _i'd.em--eIitia is suspected CT scan, NMR EEG, Lumbar puncture .aI1Fd blood test wiii be carried out. He further stated that 53 dementia cannot be diagnosed without eonduct.ing"jthetabove tests. If 'there is any behavioral problem, an doctor will also be taken. In such"eireum'_stane'es', denientia ' Could be diagnosed even in one day"; In,oi*ossée2§aminatt:on,"'he admits that during the period }vorl{'ed__ in_ there' i was no other doctor nan1ieVV:"E3u't'esh jeyorking at NIMHANS. Normally the"wi11 be issued to the patient. 'l'her_e fiworking in the NIMHANS. ._ 4' p_e1'iod4u:l3Vr.Gou1*ie Devi and NIMHANS. The said names the in Ex.P37. PW2 can say as to whether ileddy. The case sheet shows it pertains to thepatientvnmentioned in Ex.P37. The discharge reflected in Ex.P37 issued basing on the notingylon the sheets. The case summary will be prepared . by the oopiicerned Medical Officer and the concerned doctor has signed tile summary. He has denied the s'uggestion that was issued by him and EX.3'27{a) is his signature. He pan say that the patient by name Srinivasa Reddy was § 54 admitted to the Nli\/[HANS on 9.1.1984. He admits that Dr.Su1'esh Rao Aroor was working in the department of Radiology at NIMHANS. He did not know Reddy, who is party to the suit. He has deniedthelsiiggestion. that the signature in Ex.P37 was put'? .
Anandarama Reddy and Sar1ja3f_.__ Howeifer, the relevant point of time, he *.vorkiln'g ENIMHANS and Working as Assistant P'ro_i'esso:.fA. the person incharge of treating such patient. adInits'"'~t.ha:tj ..Dr.Gowridevi and D1'.Prabt1al<alf~.¥_{"ao'fi:3Arho"--ni"et)ared..E2{.P37, were working at that point ; He also admits that the case summary lwiéllt by the concerned Medical Officer V. and,.t.he concerned has signed it.
A _V 4;3A.i.{n.4the_'instant case, an attempt was made to obtain the plaintiffs. The same was opposed on the V _ g1'otii'id is not available. In this context, we have to i.,exa,.fl1ineV"'the evidence of one more witness i.e. DW5 -- Sathyanarayana. He was a Medical Record Technician in
-Nill/IHANS since 20 years. He produced the Casually Medica} 55 officer Register for the period from 1983 to 1984, whioh was marked as EX.D72. EXD72 contains the entry to Srinivasa Reddy and shows Srinivasa Reddy was the hospital on 9.1.1984, which is..fo,1_ind Ex.D72. The inpatient Register rt-.1ai1:1_tair1eAd'._in during 198384 is EX.D73, ":_'th_e Srinivasa Reddy is found at Lil of The date and time of discharge Farinivasa Reddy has been written and scored off... deposed that Dr.Sureysh«VaRaol_"Art:3: .wa--s: Neuro--pediatric Surgeon in NIl\/IANS.' VI%lt:fft1dt1nitsaA_:"that. there is a separate format maintained'*i4__in _ issuing discharge sL1mrsary. ushow"r1yh_irn_1's not the format regularly used in discharge summary. This letterhead shows«that""D_r.'St£i'esh Rao Arur was working as a doctor in the V _ hospital the issue of Ex.P37. He did not know as to it yviaetherVDr.Prabhakar was working in the hospital at that time was issued lrom NIMHANS in respect of the patient " iirinivasa Reddy mentioned in ex.P73(a]. From this evidence on 56 record, it is clear that Srinivasa Reddy was«V....ad»mit-tedV"to NIMHANS on 9.1.1984. He was inpatient in hosbitallsforl' two days. Subsequently. he was c1;zséh'arg¢d«, 7 registers amply prove this fact. if lliti is~vh~elVd.rt--o:V'be proved or the contents of theVsa.r:riebfour1d..to then makes it clear that the .testato'r" inilasotind state of mind and the natured' not have been deteriorated intvaday to prove that Ex.P37 is iiliherelibre, the best evidence in this case the testator is to summon the case sl--.1eetV.vll'}t:V:'iyaS,fitiiedefendants, who were expected to prove thatfilfie in a sound state of mind. They should: have sunimioned the author to produce the case sheet before uztlovshow that he was not suffering from dementia land'l.--.afte'r*«'atgh.e'examination and treatment, his condition was hale'"a.nd~..Vhealthy both physically and mentally. An objection . _was__raise'd by the defendants for summoning the case sheets. »_Th_Verei'ore the plaintiffs examined Dr.Prabhakar Rao. The Trial " Court held that Dr.Suresh Rao Arur as stated in his evidence 57 that he cannot give evidence with regard to the treatmleiitgliveii to Srinivasa Reddy without looking into case sheets mgi.r1'13ia1fi'ea'» in the hospital and the plaintiffs }1:1ve»:_~.1gh_t tofirehuttal VT evidence. An application was allowed for's.urnni.orii:ngxtl2.¢ case sheet as well as exarnining:_l)r.pPral§l1al{ar.' this conduct of the defendants'. is _Proloably they thought that once Dr.Arur denied on EXP37, the Court may discard .th6 the document is executed, it is not proved or it is on record to show the mental:X_AconclitiVo'n'fr-oi" testator. It appears that after summons Kumar appeared and filed a nieiiyo dated 2¥4;]_,fi.2V0()l: stating that the case records is not in this context. the plaintiffs contended that Sri Sanj.ay,"so'n__olidefendants No.1 and 2 was an. employee of V V' _ NIMHAN-Sand he played an irnportant. role to destroy the said Jrecord or non--availability of the said record. which would have light on the mental condition of the testator. It is in this
-backgrouiid. we have to see the conduct of the defendants t 58 immediately after service oi' summons in this case. In "order to find out whether Ex.P37 is a genuine document whether the contents of the said document a1'el:true..lVor*ll it would be interesting to note the" tdefence by H:l'1€':' defendants in the written stai;em°ent:;'.A:'l"
alleged in the plaint at pai-a;l-fiqtiaat the of Srinivasa Reddy after,' the gradually deteriorated and on 9. to NIMHANS and after two days. he.Was* that time, he was about 8Qt..yeg;irs lollldg =.He.lw.asl diabetic with history of memory disturbances remember recent things like forgetting llrielndslanderelatives etc. He was not knowing or rem.crr1be'1'ing \?lfllAl<i,"v"..l'Vl§__I_'_"l.1€ had taken food at all. The history was one 'ol'«prog1'essiVe story. There was conscious irritable irnf)'a_.ir.meiit"ofirnmediate and recent memory loss coupled with _ beh2:tVio1'*al changes in the form of obsession disoriented place.
v..Tl1is..4condition continued till his death. The said allegations .l ha\?e"been denied by the defendants at para--1O of the written statenaent. The defendants interalia contended in the said 1;//"' 62 husband. The relationship is cordial. In the yeai':~an extent of 19%; acres of land was given del'e11daI1lts by way of gift as the testator has" no s-oiisllyllonlyllf daughters and the 21*" defendant soi'1+ii1.~law"
living with the deceased testat--oi*'.~V..V_ Thefevidexncre to i show that nearly 34 long yea1js--,----llthvey"~haveltai:.en_care of the deceased as well as of the same, if the testatot felt'that:he.:sh'ould'. acres of land exclusively, 1% That conduct of the deceased__tes_t'at,o'i .t:hVeVsewices of defendants No.1 and 2 taken care of his estate and his family. ' .A .- V Once an'.eX'Le1'1tof 191/2 acres of land is given to one 'l V' «--vdaugjh:teif---i.anvd her hu'"ioa'nd and if in the remaining extent of land is not distributed equally among daughters,."l-inf the absence of any reasons for such lxdiscrimina;.tion, that by itself would constitute a suspicious fcirculmstaiice s'u1*rounding the execution of the Will. In that 63 regard, the evidence on record discloses that the 'i'est.at-or had maintained a good relationship with all the four If the aforesaid evidence discussed above is co,n'sidere'd," t]fiisl'». would show as to who took care of .:l'1irn. ,wl1en litlpll badly, if it was not coming from tl1e'1«fi1*st[defendant and children. In those C1'1"C1J.1"I1lSl;':l"fi~f,3V€S, if' he has v~eXe.cuted':a Willi V few months after the said incid,e.ntA' he has, pnefer1'ed the first defendant again Certainly it is for the propounder of the On that aspect, on record.
__ extent of 4 acres 15 guntas of land and exclusively given to the first defenfdaiitpg h"61;.,a1id eight children, Whereas the piain"t.iffs'iare"given only 2 acres 20 guntas of land, whereas lffél-,.,--:tl1e cripple is given 3 acres 19 guntas in Sy.AN-o.63v'an.dl~i'.2Al acres 37' guntas in Sy.No.64/2 and an extent of nacrez guntas in Sy.No.l2/3, again it would go to the yplllpossessioii of the first defendant and her .I"an1.il.y niernbers who vii 64 are taking care of the fourth defendant. shoyvstf'th;a..tV.the distribution of the properties of the deceased equal. It is in that context. his state 'Of'iTi'il1(?;_' and:ill§h.ealtfi:1 also i j assumes importance. -._ 2 __
47. That apart, an extent of._4" ac1'es"'15 gungtas in; Sy.Nos.45 and 43/2, is also kept» mi thev':plaint.iffs. The recitals in the Will shout that _an of sale is executed in respect of those properties and sale deeds have to be exectirtehd and {the ba1ance._Coiisideration is to be 1'ea1ised.V_an_d thatjish'e:ndo1i'e~'by one of the sons of the first defendantsfihus.' extent of 4 acres 15 guntas also ilidlrectiy, goes "*to__t1'ie share of the first defendant. In fact, In if "stated that the father has assisted the plaintiffs in "p.u1*-c_h.é1sifig__the~"sites. construction of houses and also in ptirChaS,._{_:"0f~'5I'110t0r vehicles. Absolutely. no evidence is on if ' iecord ftosubstalitiate those facts. Under these circumstances, _dlwhen:'admittedly the Testator was completely under the care f arid protection of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 for over a period of t/..
65 34 years and also at the fag end of his life he undu.ly"*favours defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their children, in the of any acceptable explanation, the only inference'"canypbé. drawn is that the defendant Nos} and 2 haxije Dart ' j in preparation of the Will and to that the property remaining with"lt_hc_ Testator .aftei-A .gi'ft also' comes to their share.
48. In fact, it was..c.o_ntei'ided the discharge of the Testahtor' Testator did attend the Land evidence was recorded, which is cited as a'pro'of Vof sl*ioW*;1'1g that the Testator was in a sound '~ ,.Vstat_e_' 1.)rior tet-he date of execution of the Will. 49,5' ' [1491 support of their contention, they have produced R""~._VV"thepord.er..«sheet maintained by the Land Reforms Tribunal and _.also. the statement recorded by the Land Reforms Tribunal. _THat piece of evidence appears to have weighed with the V mt -
66 learned Trial Judge in coming to the conclusion that "was in a sound state of mind. Immediately after the the Will, the daughters suspecting some mischsiefllxissuedls papa?' publication informing the general ;:;:ii51i¢' n_ot._to:'er,1:_ters any if transaction with their father as he vtras not in asound statellofy mind. After publication of the the Testator, reply notices were urhicli according to the learned Trial Judge a sound state of mind. in this $1-eggard, failed to notice the evidence of eg<aniination--in~chief, PW- l has iixis false to say that "in the year 1984 that Courts and public offices and t:.;_j1a': 3'. do not that my father gave a statement before the year 1983-84". In the cross-
that "myself, my father and Ashwath _ Kuniar g_aVe,fA«statements before the Land Tribunal. it is true rny'v.father was mentally sound when he gave statement :.lb.ei'orel«'lthe Land Tribunal. Sometimes, my father used to attend toglthe Land Tribunal alone". Relying on this admission, it is E/.
e... t:
67
contended that after discharge from NIMHANS, the has appeared before the Land Reforms statement and he was attending to the~case7_4a1one;flwhiclilgtiveto ' j show that he was in a sound stat.e1"'of record shows that the Land ZR-<::for_r11s TribunalV-rafter'"recording V the statement of the Testator,had-_disn1issed---his_.:c1aim. The same was challenged bve'f'or'e--th--isvWrit Petition. The said order was s4e:Easide"an'd remanded back to the Tribunal_ is after such remand: _whet~he:1" :Vthev:'Test.ator was recorded and wheth6:V1i7V_ that is in sound state of mind. It is in of PW-- 1. in the examinationdnw chief _;to" the effectffthat it is false to say that in the year 1984 jyfatherwfasattending the Courts and public offices and she fdoesnot4f{13:»ow.f'Vwf1ether her father gave a statement before the Land..T1*ibunai in the year 1983-84 assumes importance. What :.sheeLadm--itt;.ed in the crosswexamination is that herself, her ,f1"ather'f and Ashwath Kumar gave statements before the Tribunal, it cannot be inferred with reference to the statement t/ 69 and has ta.l{e11 an adjournment. The signature fou1'i:d"»in the order sheet also shows that there is total inconsis--tenc_y i'n_the said signature from one date to another."__.l_"Thaf.'igiyes'ah' indication that it is the second defendant' who Wash: p_1:o.§é'ég_ti§1g the matter was responsible for _recol'ding'._.of we can see his hand every\vhet'e..:i'Ihat 313--thee the daughter of the testator into' the 'Witness box, though it is she who share under the Will as of the second defendant. ..
it Vthe_&Vli;glht-o.f'i~the_al'oresaid documentary and oral evidenceon 'reco1'd;l'i:xi:z'e. a1'"e:sa.'t'islied that the propounder of the Will has faillleditoldvestablish that the deceased~Testator has ,.ixIalidi]_!3l}' executed Ex.D3. Further, they have failed to ~h:e_'_.was in a sound state of mind and health at the Qfltti--e'execution' of the Will. They have failed to dispel 'the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. On the the evidence on record clearly establishes that the 70 deceasedv'l'estator was not in a sound state of mind,'-:h'e.l'had lost his memory power, he was unable to sign was not knowing what was happenii1g"aroun'd ',
51. In that View of the inat't_er,::'t}1.¢3' f1;'I'}§Z"1i'i7.|.g"OfVV Tijial Court that the Will is duly'll_p-rovedll,'~._as theTauth.QVr lot the' document is examined, one examined, family Doctor is examiried: 'Eeisvtat.oLrz in sound state of mind, the attestation is proved is erroneous and l :.:vle:,[,§ai"""evidence on record.
Therefore, hy the Trial Court requires to be interfered vand Accordingly, we set aside the sarnei 'V
-*..,.E()iN'F .....
"-iazld bearing Sy.No.-45 measuring 2 acres 7 bearing Sy.No/L3/2 measuring 1 acre 38 "._'gL1I"1l'.8.S~ situated at Venkoji Rao Lane, Madiwala Village, Begur A v~ilf'i4.ilgbii.,. Bangalore South Taluk, admittedly belongs to the 71 Testator. It is recited in the Will that he has executed an agreement of sale in favour of defendant Nos.5, 6 He has agreed to execute the sa.1e deed in their__favou'r:§ event of the sale deed being not executed c41t:':~mg'_'vh1's-iiife tinie. Z and if he were to die before such an son of the first daughter Ashe-tr _eighth= suit has to register the ainfajvoufr of such purchasers and for authorising them under the Will. 'V = 'F consideration was bequeathed in his favour'fl.__'T'nusV;' eircludeiing the aforesaid land, he distributed theremainingdldextent of land held by him among his four .Ad'aught.ers, {Now the evidence on record discloses that the 1"I7€sttator' lifetime did not execute the sale deed in favour purchasers. However, defendant No.8 in the gyear 19V8'$~.--89 is said to have executed sale deeds and Power of _' A_ttorney in favour of the purchasers or their nominees. ..«Defe.ndant No.8 who was examined as DW6 has deposed that 72 he has not received any consideration after execution of the said agreements. Once the aforesaid properties...gWere.y_ not alienated / transferred during the lifetime of the death, his legal heirs succeeded to the said prop.e'1~'t..ies,: if he has executed the agreement purchasers, no interest in thec'propertie"s'was said purchasers. In fact. the sate is yet to see the light of the daygg'-It the Court either by defendant Nos.5. 6 and 7, who claim right 'ti.oi.._the properties uVrrder___t.he agreement of sale or by de_fen«.d'ant"'i'Jo:$','ixylioiwas "authorised to execute the sale deeds under the dfieliéalf of the Testator. Therefore, in V law, pya§ftereA.the deathivof the Testator, the said properties vested Vviri'th_pVd'his_.s'four'A'daughters and therefore, all the four daughters, are share in the said properties. All the V _ alieniations, "such as sale deeds or Power of Attorney executed the eighth defendant in favour of the purchasers or their it . norriinees is during the pendency of these proceedings are Void M ' 'ab--i11itio as the suit was filed in the year 1986. 73
54. In the first place, the eighth defendant had no right, title or interest to convey under the afo'resaid4Vsal_edeeds or so--called Power of Attorney. The so~called are during the pendency of the proceeditfgs..VV V defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 are the xvslgllot l those documents executed _themselVes defendant and therefore, all by the doctrine of lis pendensvahd afoijesaidvvdocumeiits, no one has got any right, ,j»nv.'th'evfpi'ope1'ty. As such, the tosuthe four daughters and is aVailable--.for«partition' the four daughters are entitled to equal_share4;*apa1it..'--fi'ovmf"the other properties which are the * i--§I.'.'al.t.C'r of the"'W'iV]l.
__two items of the properties are the subject proceedings before the Special Deputy
--V Comrziipssionei'. Now, the daughters would also put forth their l:'s.i:ndep_e11dent claim, apart from the children of the first vi written stateirient have denied the existence of those 74 defendant. Admittedly, this land is an Inam lEllf1.C.l_:"
passing of the Inams Abolition Act, this land is Government. The question is whethe'rwthe,se.; are if entitled for re--grant. It is that propertgfalsci iricludedp in this partition suit. As onlth_e."'~daiie has on today, the said propertydoes not ubVe1ong..'either"to the Testator or his legal heirs. The whom the said claim is p€i'1iT_l:l'I1.f_._{' to decide and adjudic§a«te"'v jurisdiction is ousted was justified in not going to the it clear that, depending upon the result of before the Deputy Commissioner, _ the parties could out their rights which cannot be found . infschedule 'C' properties, the plaintiffs have listed if H " rnovable properties, which according to them belong to the joint ..fandily'--~a11d they are claiming equal share. The defendants in 75 the Deputy Co1'11missi0;:1er for Inams a11d.__"a1;stO 3 schedule 'C' properties which are movafjlesi 'W All the applications are 0rde.red_-£10. 9¥3e«'fi1ed'.V"' ' N0 costs.
sd/-
e e JUDGE ck1/bggrh/gt/ugh" - V'