Delhi District Court
Sh. Nagender Lakra vs Sh. Surender Kumar on 23 September, 2019
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, WEST,TIS HAZARI, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 612545/16
Sh. Nagender Lakra
S/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram,
R/o H.No. 502, Sector09,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana .........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Surender Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram,
R/o Plot no. 715, Extended Abadi,
(Saini Vihar), Mundka,
Delhi110041
2. Smt. Anita
D/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram
W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar,
R/o H.No 35, Vill. Nangli Sakrawati,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
3. Sh. Dhani Ram (since deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Jage Ram
4. Smt. Ram Pyari,
W/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram,
R/o Plot no. 715, Extended Abadi,
(Saini Vihar), Mundka,
Delhi110041 ...........Defendants
CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 1 of 18
: 2 :
Date of filing the suit : 27.02.2012
Date when reserved for order : 02.09.2019
Date of Order : 23.09.2019
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the suit for partition of following properties (herein after referred to as 'suit properties'):
(a) Plot no. 711 measuring 565 sq. yards as shown in colour pink in the site planI;
(b) Plot no. 715 measuring 1365 sq. yards, situated in extended abadi of village Mundka, Delhi and known as Saini Vihar, as shown in colour pink in the site planII
(c) Property no. 603, measuring 214 sq. yards forming part of khasra no.
370, situated in old Lal Dora of village Mundka, Delhi, as shown in colour pink in the site planIII.
Plaint
2. The facts as averred in the plaint are that the suit properties were originally owned by late Sh. Jage Ram. Sh. Jage Ram died intestate on 10.04.1980 leaving behind his three sons namely Sh. RamKishan, Sh. Dhanni Ram and Sh. Sant Ram as surviving classI legal heirs. After his death, all his three sons mutually partitioned the agricultural as well as residential properties among themselves. The suit properties had fallen CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 2 of 18 : 3 : in the share of Sh. Dhanni Ram being one of the son of late Sh. Jage Ram.
3. Plaintiff and defendant no.1 are the grandsons of late Sh. Jage Ram and defendant no. 2 is the granddaughter of late Sh. Jage Ram. Plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant no. 2 are children of Sh. Dhanni Ram who was impleaded as defendant no. 3 in the suit at the time of institution of the suit. Wife of Sh. Dhanni Ram and mother of plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 namely Smt. Ram Pyari is impleaded as defendant no. 4.
4. It is averred in the plaint that after the mutual settlement between the sons of late Sh. Jage Ram, partition has taken place by metes and bounds and all the three sons were in possession of their respective shares. It is further averred that defendant no. 2 has agreed to relinquish her share in favour of her brothers i.e. plaintiff and defendant no.1. It is further averred that in the year 1991, defendant no.1 separated from the family and he was given about 300 sq. yards area out of plot no. 715 where defendant no. 1 is residing separately. After some time rear portion of the house i.e. plot measuring about 537 sq. yards was also given to him. Plaintiff has further averred that in the year 2000, plaintiff also separated from defendant no. 3 and he was given CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 3 of 18 : 4 : house no. 603.
5. Plaintiff has stated that subsequently, a dispute arose between plaintiff and defendant no.1 due to which an MOU dated 22.11.2009 was executed. In the said MOU, defendant no. 2 did not claim any share and agreed to be a witness to the MOU thereby relinquishing her shares in faovur of her brothers. It is further averred that fresh MOU dated 30.12.2009 was executed which was not registered due to technical reasons.
6. It is further averred that after obtaining NOC defendant no. 3 and plaintiff sold their share to different vendees. Subsequently, defendant no.1 denied the execution of MOU and also filed several litigations. Defendant no. 2 also claimed her share in the suit properties. In these circumstances, plaintiff called upon the defendants to carry out the partition of the suit properties. However, as defendants did not agree for partition, plaintiff was constraint to file the present suit.
7. Written statement was filed by defendant no. 1 and joint written statement was filed by defendant no. 2 to 4. In the written statement filed by defendant no. 1 a preliminary objection is taken that plaintiff cannot claim partition of the suit properties during the life time of his CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 4 of 18 : 5 : father Sh. Dhanni Ram. It is further stated that properties of Late Sh. Jage Ram was never partitioned and the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jage Ram are not impleaded in the present suit. It was further averred that plaintiff has filed the incorrect site plan and the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. Defendant no.1 has admitted the relationship of the parties. All other contents of the plaint are categorically denied.
8. Defendant no. 2 to 4 have admitted the case of the plaintiff. It is further averred on behalf of defendant no. 2 to 4 that the MOU was signed by all the parties specially defendant no. 1 after going through its contents and out of their free will. It is further averred that as defendant no.1 has refused to act upon the MOU and has pleaded fraud, therefore, now the answering defendants are not bound by the MOU dated 30.12.2009.
9. Replication filed on behalf of plaintiff to the written statement of defendant no. 1 wherein he reaffirmed and reasserted the contents of plaint and denied all the submissions made in the written statement of defendant no. 1.
CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 5 of 18 : 6 :Issues
10. After completion of the pleadings, my Ld. Predecessor framed following issues on 13.12.2012: Issue no. 1: What are the shares of the parties in the suit properties, as mentioned in prayer clause (I) of the plaint? OPP Issue no.2: Whether the suit, as instituted by the plaintiff, is maintainable in the absence of partition of the suit properties between the legal heirs of late Shri Jage Ram, including the defendant no. 3 herein? OPD1 Issue no.3: Whether the suit is liable to be rejected for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD1 Issue no.4: Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
11. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined Sh.Rewti Prasad Sharma , Patwari in SDM office as PW1. He has identified the copy of Khatuni records pertaining to year 20052006 of village Mundka for khasra no. 711, 715 as Ex. PW1/A. PW1 was crossexamined on behalf of defendant no.1, not crossexamined on behalf of defendant no. 2 to 4 despite opportunity and then discharged.
CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 6 of 18 : 7 :12. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, JJA,Record Room (Session) Tis Hazari as PW2. He has identified the certified copy of amended plaint , certified copy of three written statements, certified copy of family settlement dated 22.11.2009 and certified copy of site plan all filed in case bearing no. 330/10 as Ex. PW2/A to Ex. PW2/F respectively. PW2 was not crossexamined on behalf of defendants despite opportunity and then discharged.
13. Plaintiff examined himself as PW3. He tendered his affidavit in evidence in examinationinchief as Ex. PW3/A wherein he has reiterated the contents of plaint on oath. PW3 has relied upon following documents:
(a) Certified copy of khatoni as Ex. PW1/1,
(b) Site plan of property bearing no. plot no. 711 and plot no. 715 and house no. 603, 356, 524 and 527 as Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3,
(c) Site plan of property bearing no. 603 given to plaintiff as Ex. PW1/4
(d) MOU dated 22.11.2009 as Ex. PW1/5,
(e) Certified copy of plaint , written statement filed by defendant no. 3, defendant no.1, defendant no. 4 and defendant no. 5 to 7 in suit no. 330/10 as Ex. PW1/6 to Ex. PW1/9,
(f) Certified copy of site plans of house no. 603, 356/ 524, 715 and 711 filed by defendant no. 1 and plaintiff in suit no. 67/2010 as Ex. PW1/10 CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 7 of 18 : 8 : to Ex. PW1/13 respectively.
14. PW3 was crossexamined on behalf of all the defendants and then discharged. No other witness was examined by plaintiff. Thereafter PE was closed.
Defendant's Evidence
15. In order to prove his case, defendant no. 1 examined himself as DW
1. He has tendered his affidavit in examinationinchief as Ex.DW1/A wherein he reaffirmed the contents of his written statement on oath. DW1 has relied upon following documents:
(a) Original cursory site plan of house no. 556/524, house no. 603, plot no.
715 and plot no. 711 as Ex. DW1/ to Ex. DW1/4 respectively.
(b) Certified copy of sale deed dated 07.10.2011 as Ex. DW1/5,
(c) Certified copy of plaint, written statement and ordersheet in suit no.
100/2011 as Ex. DW1/6 to Ex. DW1/8 respectively.
(d) Certified copy of plaint bearing no. 373/2010 and 174/2011 as Ex.
DW1/10 and Ex. DW1/11 respectively.
(e) Certified copy of plaint in suit no. 174/11 titled as Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar as Ex. DW1/12,
(f) Site plans as Ex. DW1/13 (colly) CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 8 of 18 : 9 :
16. DW1 was crossexamined on behalf of plaintiff and then discharged.
17. Defendant no. 2 to 4 examined defendant no. 3 as D3W1 in their evidence. D3W1 has tendered his affidavit in examinationinchief as Ex.D3W1/A wherein he reaffirmed the contents of the written statement of defendant no. 2 to 4 on oath. D3W1 did not rely upon any document. D3W1 was crossexamined on behalf of plaintiff and then discharged. Thereafter, DE was closed.
Findings
18. I have heard and considered the arguments addressed on behalf of parties and considered the written arguments filed on behalf of plaintiff. Record is perused.
19. My issuewise findings are as follows: Issue no.3: Whether the suit is liable to be rejected for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD1
20. Onus of proving this issue was upon defendant no.1. Defendant no. 1 has stated in the preliminary objection and in the written statement that all the legal heirs of Sh. Jage Ram were necessary party to the suit. However, plaintiff has denied the said fact in his replication. It is averred on behalf of plaintiff that the properties of Late Sh. Jage Ram CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 9 of 18 : 10 : were already partitioned between the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jage Ram. Therefore, other two sons were not necessary parties to the suit. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW3. During crossexamination, PW 3 has admitted that in records, the suit properties are jointly owned by all the three sons of Late Sh. Jage Ram. It is stated further that the suit property was partitioned between the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jage Ram by mutual settlement. The said fact has been duly proved by the cross examination of defendant no. 3 who has been examined as D3W1. Defendant no. 3 was the father of the plaintiff and one of the son of Late Sh. Jage Ram. He has deposed in his crossexamination that the property of his father was duly partitioned by metes and bounds among three brothers and they are in possession of their respective shares. Hence, plaintiff has proved by preponderance of probabilities that the properties of Late Sh. Jage Ram was partitioned among his three sons and the suit properties have fallen to the share of defendant no. 3. As defendant no. 1 has denied such partition, therefore it was incumbent upon defendant no.1 to controvert the said testimony of PW1 and D3W1 by adducing cogent evidence in the court. However, no such evidence has been produced in the court by defendant no.1. He did not make any effort to examine the other two brothers of Late Sh. Dhanni Ram to prove that there was no partition of properties of Late Sh. Jage Ram between his three sons.
CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 10 of 18 : 11 :21. In view of above discussion, the other legal heirs of late Sh. Jage Ram were not necessary party to the suit. Suit is not bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. Present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 1: What are the shares of the parties in the suit properties, as mentioned in prayer clause (I) of the plaint? OPP Issue no.2: Whether the suit, as instituted by the plaintiff, is maintainable in the absence of partition of the suit properties between the legal heirs of late Shri Jage Ram, including the defendant no. 3 herein? OPD1
22. Both these issues shall be decided together as the findings are overlapping. Onus of proving issue no. 1 is upon the plaintiff and of proving issue no. 2 upon defendant no.1.
23. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking partition of properties belonging to his late grandfather Late Sh Jage Ram. Admittedly, the father of the plaintiff Sh. Dhani Ram was alive at the time of institution of the suit. He was arrayed as defendant no. 3 in the present suit. As per the case of plaintiff, after the death of late Sh. Jage Ram, his properties were partitioned among his three brothers by virtue of family settlement CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 11 of 18 : 12 : and each of the brother was in exclusive possession of his respective share. Late Sh. Jage Ram died intestate on 10.04.1980. It is stated in the plaint that initially there was a settlement between plaintiff and defendant no.1. Defendant no. 2 relinquished her share. However, the said settlement could not be registered. Subsequently, defendant no. 2 claimed her share in the suit properties stating that the same are ancestral properties. Defendant no.1 also resiled from the MOU, hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking partition of the suit properties on the basis that same are ancestral properties which have fallen to the share of his father i.e. defendant no. 3 by succession. Both the parties have lead evidence to prove their respective case. However, before discussing the evidence, it is imperative to consider whether the plaintiff can open partition for the suit properties during the life time of his father. Written submissions are filed on behalf of plaintiff wherein Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has referred to catena of judgments. The first judgment cited on behalf of plaintiff is Hardeo Rai vs Shakuntala Devi & ors, AIR 2008 SC 2489. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the intention of the partition is expressed then the share of each of coparceners become clear and the properties ceases to be a coparcenory property. The other judgment cited is Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar; AIR 1987 SC 558 wherein it has been held that in a family governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 12 of 18 : 13 : Law property devolved on a hindu under Section 8 will not be HUF in his hand visavis his own sons. Another judgment is Dr. Neelkanth Krishna Rao Apte vs Dr. Ram Chandra Krishna Rao Apte & ors ;
AIR 1991 Bom 10 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held that a son can open partition during the lifetime of father. However, in the said case as per the pleadings the severence of status has taken place in the year 1952. From these judgments which are cited by plaintiff himself, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if a hindu acquires the property under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act then he shall not hold the said property as HUF visavis his sons and if the shares of coparcenors are crystalized then the property ceased to be a coparcenory property. In the present case plaintiff himself has pleaded that his father has obtained the suit properties by virtue of family settlement. Hence, the suit properties in the hand of defendant no. 3 ceased to be coparcenory properties and he holds the said properties as his self acquired properties visavis plaintiff and other defendants. In these circumstances, the partition of the suit properties shall be governed by section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and not by section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. Hence, plaintiff cannot claim a share in the suit properties as a coparcenor and could not have opened partition during the life time of defendant no. 3.
CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 13 of 18 : 14 :24. The law in this regard has been further crystalized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Uttam vs Saubhag Singh & ors; 2016 (4) SCC 68 where following principles are laid down governing the partition of ancestral properties :
" ..... The law, therefore, insofar as it applies to joint family property governed by the Mitakshara School, prior to the amendment of 2005, could therefore be summarized as follows:-
(i) When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, having at the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary (vide Section
6).
(ii) To proposition (i), an exception is contained in Section 30 Explanation of the Act, making it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary property is property that can be disposed of by him by will or other testamentary disposition.
(iii) A second exception engrafted on proposition (i) is contained in the proviso to Section 6, which states that if such a male Hindu had died leaving behind a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that Class who claims through such female relative surviving him, then the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, and not by survivorship.
(iv) In order to determine the share of the Hindu male coparcener who is governed by Section 6 proviso, a partition is effected by operation of law immediately before his death. In this partition, all the coparceners and the male Hindu's widow get a share in the joint family property.
(v) On the application of Section 8 of the Act, either by reason of the death of a male Hindu leaving self-acquired property or by the application of Section 6 proviso, such property would devolve only by intestacy and not survivorship.
(vi) On a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Act, after joint family property has been distributed in accordance with section 8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 14 of 18 : 15 : property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants."
25. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has also referred to the judgment passed in the case of Uttam Vs. Saubhagsingh & Others (S.A.No.206/2005) vide order dated 29.10.2013, recently in the case of Vikram Singh vs Anil Kumar decided on 01.11.2017, C.R. No. 42 of 2014 and held as follows:
"9. Under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate is to devolve according to the provisions of Chapter-II of the Act, firstly upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class-I of the Schedule and if there is no class I heir then upon Class II heir and so on. In the schedule grand-son has not been included in the list of class I heirs, whereas son of a predeceased son is included therein, therefore, grand-son's birth right on the coparcenary property no longer exists under the Act and grand-son cannot claim partition during the lifetime of his father.
10. The Supreme court in the matter of Commissionerof Wealth Tax Kanpur etc. Vs. Chander Sen etc. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1753 while approving the view taken by this Court in the matter of Shrivallabhdas Modani Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax MP-I, reported in (1982) 138 ITR 673; Allahabad High court in the matter of Commissioner of Income tax UP Vs. Ram Rakshpal Ashok Kumar, reported in (1968) 67 ITR 164; the Full Bench judgment of Madras High court in the matter of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.L. Karuppan Chettiar, reported in [1978] 114 ITR 523; and judgment of Andhra Pradesh High court in the matter of Commissioner of Wealth Tax A.P-II Vs. Mukundgirji, reported in 144 ITR 18, has held that since in Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, only son is included and son's son is not included as Class I heir therefore, the son would inherit the property in the situation contemplated by Section 8 of the Act not as Karta of his own undivided family and that one should look only to the Act and not to the pre- existing Hindu law. Referring to Section 8 of the Act, it is held that son's son get excluded and the son alone inherits the property to the exclusion of his son. In the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shrivallabhdas Modani (supra) which has been approved by the Supreme court in the above judgment, it was held by this Court that son's son is not mentioned as Class I heir in the Schedule and therefore, he cannot get any right in the property of his grand-CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 15 of 18 : 16 :
father under the Act. The right of son's son in his grand-father 's property during the lifetime of his father which existed under the Hindu law as in force before the Act is not saved expressly by the Act, and therefore, the earlier interpretation of Hindu law giving a right by birth in suchproperty has ceased to have effect. It was further held that Section 8 of the Act should be taken as a self- contained provision laying down the scheme of devolution of the property of a Hindu dying intestate. The Allahabad High court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax UP Vs. Ram Rakshpal Ashok Kumar (supra) has held that in case of assets of business left by father in the hands of his son, it would be governed by Section 8 of the Act and he would take in his individual capacity. The Madras High court in the matter of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.L. Karuppan Chettiar (supra) had held that by reason of Section 8 of the Act, the son's son gets excluded and the son alone inherits the property to the exclusion of his son and that the statutory provision contained in the Act must prevail in view of the unequivocal intention in the statute itself, expressed in Section 4(1). The Andhra Pradesh High court in the matter of Commissioner of Wealth Tax A.P-II Vs. Mukundgirji (supra) had taken the view that the properties which devolved upon heirs mentioned in Class I of Schedule under Section 8 of the Act constituted the absolute properties and the son's son will have no right by birth in such properties. The Supreme court in the matter of Chander Sen (supra) has approved the above view of this Court as well as Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts. The contrary view of the Gujarat High court has been dis-approved by the Supreme court.
11. In the matter of Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, reported in AIR 1987 SC 558 referring to the earlier judgment in the case of Chander Sen (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that the property which devolved upon the father on the demise of the grand-father cannot be said to be HUF property in the hands of the father vis-a-vis his own sons. In the matter of Sheela Devi and others Vs. Lal Chand and another reported in (2006) 8 SCC 581, it has been further clarified by the Supreme court by holding that prior to the commencement of the Act as per the Mitakshara law usage once a son was born he used to acquire an interest in the coparcenary property as an incident of his birth, but now the Act would prevail over the Hindu law. In that case son's son was born prior to the commencement of 1956 Act therefore, it was held that he would retain his share of the property as a coparcener even after the commencement of the 1956 Act, while father who had died in 1889, his share will devolve upon his heirs according to the provisions of the Act. The Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Chandrakanta and another Vs. Ashok Kumar and others, reported in 2002(3) MPLJ 576 has also held that after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, the theory of birth right does not exist and the son gets share in the property only after death of his father. Similar view has also been taken by another Single Bench judgment in the matter of Babulal and others Vs. Ramkali Bai & others, reported in ILR[2012] MP 1271."
CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 16 of 18 : 17 :26. The judgment of Uttam vs Saubhagsingh (supra) was upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the principles governing the partition of co parcenory property of Mitakshara family were laid down which are already discussed above. Hence, from the above discussion, it is clear that if a male hindu dies after the commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 then his property shall devolve as per the provisions of the Act. In the present case, the suit properties originally belonged to the grand father of the plaintiff i.e. Late Sh. Jage Ram. Admittedly, he has expired in the year 1980. Hence, his property shall devolve as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. Further, in view of the above cited law, it is also established that the share of Sh. Dhanni Ram i.e. father of the plaintiff shall be his self acquired property visavis his sons and daughters and shall devolve upon his successors as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. Sh. Dhanni Ram was alive at the time of filing of the suit and was arrayed as defendant no. 3 in the present suit. Therefore, plaintiff could not have claimed partition during the life time of his father as his right to inherit share does not accrue. Hence, at the time of institution of the suit there was no cause of action arising in favour of the plaintiff.
27. In view of the above discussion, parties are not entitled for any share in the suit properties. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided against the CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 17 of 18 : 18 : plaintiff and in favour of defendants. As already discussed above, the suit is not maintainable in the present form. Hence, issue no. 2 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
Issue no.4: Relief.
28. In view of above discussions, suit of plaintiff is dismissed. All the parties shall bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Sugandha Aggarwal ADJ/West/Delhi 23.09.2019 This judgment contains 18 pages and all pages are duly signed by me.
Sugandha Aggarwal ADJ/West/Delhi 23.09.2019 Announced in the open court on 23rd September, 2019 CS No. 612545/16 Nagender Lakra vs Surender Kumar Page 18 of 18