Karnataka High Court
Smt.Narayanamma vs Sri.S P Nagaraj S/O Pillaiah on 27 January, 2011
1111 liii ri ;1 II C I
) ! 'I!i". ''\
) 'b
THE HON BLE MR JUSTiCE H BILLAPPA
r' ii -k p;1<r i--L'1 i ilk. $Q()/ (;ft'
BETWEEN:
Vt,, -.
...I I i_ •
.A9'I L' 'ti:
7 £
"•1: a
'.v I R
tlVgiil
Si' ic clL,'U r t
•
ii Iti'n- i.r:'i it
e botii 52
\ '80 Ian. R i I
lit
•,91.
'
I .1
I
I
I I
4
2nd plaintilT is blind since about 5 years and the 1st
respondent was addicted to liquor and inflicted on
Naravanamma also. It is stated. the appellant Narayanamnia
and her husband were carrying on milk vending business and
used to buy and sell the cows. Et is stated. the 1" respondent
is the brother of the appellant and used to render help in the
business of the appellant and also give company for sharing
the liquor. It is stated. the I respondent gained confidence
of the appellant and her husband and when the appellant
and her husband undertook the work of demolition and
reconstruction of the building In the suit schedule property.
the 1st respondent assisted the appellant and her husband In
obtaining license, gathering the raw material, getting coolies
and organising the work of construction. The 1t respondent
was moving with the appellant In intimate terms and the
appellant placed confidence In the 1t respondent. It is
stated, the value of the property was about t3.OO,000/-.
I.
5
5. Further ft Is stated, the 1st respondent was au
employee of thc Government of Karnataka and he persuaded
the appellant, if she offers the suit schedule property as
collateral security, he would take loan from the Government
and give It to the appellant as his loan to complete the
construction. Jt Is stated. the 1st respondent wanted the
documents of the suit schedule property for scrutiny and
inspection and also wanted the power of attorney for
processing the loan papers. The appellant. in view of the
trust she had In the 1st respondent delivered the title deeds of
the suit schedule property to the 1 respondent and also
consented to execute the power of attorney. The 1
respondent took the appellant and her husband to the
Sub-Register office after treating the appellant with liquor and
induced the appellant and her husband to sign on some
stamp papers which were already written and without
allowing the appellant to know the contents of the document.
The appellant signed the document and it was registered.
The lsL respondent availed loan from the Government and lent
11
? )iQ'hi ie S ).t.
.t
11
.) '; 1% --.fl tb.
..I S .,lI.,j:. II1.
'tIl(!l ia:JLI T1
L • :--
-
•i' ; 1.:
I i, 1:ij. f.
•
•
• •hi' I:' S i't •
rin I lit' from I un dPt$ iLa : hr ((
Ii 1
u r hh in it €3' lii'
Ill tI(-- )I 11
;
(, /,
• ',•11(1 .1
I .I%L)lll(e •1 l( '4)01 ckn n't
etc.
I z 'rid ii"
tic It' hii .j •.
I
•
• I
I) ' 1'. 'I 'j%
• : I.' •
.t. .1. .1' II.'. • t • I'
• I
,:
11
tjr T h ,' Il 11 --lj( "
•'
'. :jj. •"t iii •"
(1i I I K• ttsbtt (hr H
• 'I •
2 i 1
L
1i •' littilit
It 1' •T itt I tHu 1 t Il un 'to iii u'nn 0!
:ub'. 1'P 'ittil :(c Ii st n tr tnt I.. 'h'Ic piow r-z 'wi .
Cht
1 it) tiC I (It 'itt
.0 at lilt
(1)1 urn . - 'ill'
• .fl t
11
•fjt_ Er ; .tl.l•tI f;:' )1ILI! ii.
1 1 ••' 'i.'!i'J ,,1
.
'l' 1 I -- 'LI..! *r 'ii • r.: 1i' '
1
:a' r.v •
1 4 C I It! ii. C. I I .k1 I lie
I
• ill
I
• • i• I • a
• I
I iii' '
w
1 , ii I,) 1
i(g
ii '4 II hc I ii
S, -- I.i• d' 1.
• !., h ': t. '
tI(,ti, Ifl a' ' !'aIl thrt.ug' it %,%tI
r- i -- 1
t 4; •'•! tt'•
.1
3 i I (
1jJ' : :1 _' 'I t. C L 'r.ttI"I'
i.--i'
'
t Clt lI.si t
I i'i'' t •.
siiI' '<'-up-ar '.
11 lj,(J •llIt__ tlit C iI• ii1%I '1' " •9• tatifli! 114'.
- U In. ii 14 lii
) 'TIC fl I I Slt!1t Lilt 1,. ci (icit
.1113
'2 W"ø' . 'ei'IitJ •t itt " 'ii'I t
f
1 lt,)i •I' ). 17141 "k 1flh41lj1%
I. "11 • ii (I
(I 1 tb
I ,)I . 1 I t t. -- I
J 1 I
1
) S.
I .
7 1
S
L
I 1'
I ,T.1i I • 1 1
'% ,':' •: •;..
":s In :'.h.h:it. '. 'e)g
7 47I.f I )g) .?s'
! •-';
£ fl ifl (111 J
5 P 7 11 'i )) 3'$flJ 9! I
1•t?j i £ £7'ui •; :
9 •P•' fi : ):js Jo '.rh
•l'i 'P)cj' .• Si' s' )' -, 'ii • •. •.--taOiI'
I) 1.' '1 ) flI') '1 ''I )i11 )'
17.
)) VII
'LI 'U
lOg rig 1?
1 I II )Js 1 1 '%r-.%1)
v ,,s? i. •, •,. _) 0 .. '.
,:. :4 ••g :1' (.
•j'J Jg!s :, , ), .f:
•3 •;. £
o)L L'. J;i. (I' TI
''fl'•j --'9 "1
P IlL? ''t ': ) 'J 1 tfl I•1t al
' I
-; i !,. t.. , fj(. •r. s
£ 'Z • ' ;I' :•
' •',
c•• •'•:s .g7.
£111 V lit "
I#,, it Jic"I a'
Jp aj. vv !?'.i n.J'77 -- P it) ,',a&a' 1,,
C a. (IL Ig iLa 1 ' •)( '' u l's
I I
S I
i:, f"Lt g •' ; '.
•'. .azfr• '
St
I
1 •
.
: ' ••
S
I
I £
I
I.
I 'aL "Ci - (1 11 aI if .li (I' i'I Dl '. C UI 'I t °
I • St -, ii • -*11 '' Ii lit I I t' tiit P
t _j'_. is %•.j; s-I' .Ji: 111 a J1 ' 1
r'j : i
it
I IC 1 ( LI ) I
. a IL): r tr i1t
t'. I' •;7• Fu nbc-i 'LI str'n:t•ec. zL.t tilt
' t¼iT 11! if )( -S •.qf
--
l'rj Ii, C 1 'l )P!' %%( I a1(l
tr 1 1' S d I
tOllOit 1•It: dt "!Slc IT!'-. I'' !$),$c 2' ( 1< '7 (2 AIR BbS 'T P.
I I Cl 01 'rn (I • I 'J vi id DC 'a
I r 111 -sI L Cl ii 3.
1
' I- ' It •tI. I • •
• -- --. 'La 1•. •--
•
•.
• II ''11.' , I'
1
--I, - 1 C
.•
8, U is relevant to s for deelaration
th d the sale deed dated 3: kbru 1980 s void and noes
ant bind tne piaintifi re. Lhc apuellallt herein and her
hnshand and for eaneellation ol the sale deed dated
03 02 tOSO Lt F:x.PL The appeilanui" plaintiff claims that
she is the owner of the suit sc'hedule property and sh wanted to demolish ano reeontrnet the hiuldlnd ann the i NT respondent who is her urother helped ncr in obtaining the license, collecting the raw material eurind the eoolies and king the eonstruetu r lirsr respondent d the appellant )ffcrs the suit )pertv as responder t t fro t fo it I atttd my an i and also nant V to process ni papers rhe app 1 I trust she had i liii I ri 'porac.u handed ci r ti dcc Is (t t1 t suit 1 lt dir3 LT'flV d 1 ' ifl il( I '-
--F-- r-d Ta T)1'S iihti l • '. • :'tr liii' J'I'i ; •1 atinin. Ihc I r 'I Itin tr 1 1.1.111 till t lj ' 1 (I :I)(! ;€ Lt% '1 t t' 1 ' • P •b' • i_ 1•11 I ii i •' I I * '4 1 I fit h ci th ow.
I S Iii I DC I'cJrI'l Ii nd Ct i ilat i I Ic. si f'.ir ,ht u ic!;,nht ñt ;n! j•'i. --. "4(1 Iit "bIlk .tJ"
,'ioIi't (miii Ih ipprll.'''t 1t 'ii.LI)Jt' ( 'lisicttrflh ii 'I J,,.fl(ff l' 1 • . r I c.ejsI' 'ii' t' I gi't 'b' ap':.' t.:t ' '. ci ii ' • • I L "HI. "a ;f 1-t.."t '1 '1 '4 C I S. '1 a I, ci DI Li C
2. IV. '%Ila tIac:l liii .ll• i•t It 1(r t (i 111.11 2 ,ltiht ii i 1 hit ' , II .1 Ii Ic 'I atj 1P1 r --1 tihi 'L • • 1 iluat I, ' ' r •' 1 •.ll.I ii" a II' •'''1.ii b L1kl ij it)t. 11 i'i: C ii 'a 1' Itt ' '1, i12 Ut I I, I iiiltlit 1'- eki 1( tlk'1 r ltt1 inrtd it fllOhI% nd 1 r.. ;c :1. !.'l.!C' s$ I..,. • • S. 1(j;
'T, ''.t!1c? • 1
Itli a
--Ii' I I
'SI •
J S
I
I
16
1
Sub- Registrar office and under threat they were made to sign the documents. Because of intoxicat ion, she was not able to know where the signatures were taken and after 2 or 3 months the Jst respondent paid t25 ,000/- as loan and she demolished the house and built new bui lding. She has stated that her husband had saved about t80,000/- and it was used for construction purpose. Furth er she has stated that the building consists of 6 shops In the ground floor and two houses In the I' floor and the val ue of the property was about t3,00.000/- and after demolit ion and reconstruction the value of the property is about t6.50,000/-. She has stated that they were told by the I si respondent that from the rental income the loan and interest have to be paid to the Government. She has stated that when KEB people questioned regarding iiistallation.
she came to know that l respondent has played fraud and took her signature on the sale deed. She has stated that she applied for demolition and sanctioned plan and plan was san ctioned in tier name as per Ex.P2 and after reconstruction, the y stay in the house and V I II I 1 I II 1 '1 ..'It. q viaL.;. I p •':
•1.1 .
' L 'ii' p.1 ii , I
J
-. t. ii
Si.)
sTflOIt.1T.a •.;- )'ji (T'!r) itJ 1
1:T I 1 1!" •In4! :
4
Ti fl'L 1
•'t 'jIfl ": !
T
at' \nfl\ ;.fI I .rFçt
1'
11 p 't ) Ot
_'I ITI. )j... U • .! pI •' aT 1 'l' I' .:ITI T
•
.1 T r' )
As •tT' ;'•t. .) ;' lTj. J'-- j' TIJ
L1!
p
t 7
L'"
I U 1)' .1
'.li1 .a!tttsIiLI.)' j.1%.i I •4 I •••. • .t k I .;!TI. -- .1 DL ) I iSI•. )L 'I ) flhI? % ''l Jø %.I II I itT Tilt',) ).l 7IIa .
dli C ' "'It
1'
1,
'nl t bc --ht 'i •i I lain .:.
.
• . ;r • ,' .
:.. •
'--
's.t_ I C
.e't ''t ! t' 'tl'--' 'lie l'tt% -- a iii Ii niun nET
0
Pt flUb I. c1jfl Ii) ... 'it' 'unIt ' ''i 'ut it: . h 2 it.
K hi In, 't ab ' t. t i ar_cl .fl tnnç t.' di I c N
'ik dcc is P U iS tI( ni
ih 'U
salt
1•
1% L' I) 'iii 'l 'Jt'i:x. i.' tb ii I
• : ._äi'• • t
; , ,. .1 .'.-- w:)jn ! ii 'a'' I; r
10 .3.. • • I • 1
•' 1- • I i• .
• ... 1: .Ia I - I i '• --
'I 1 1 'I.
4
r
'
U
.1
P % . M ij N aJal il .. iii Ir', 'VIt)'L 'I
!h :1 Qp' i, j li.i '. c_5 ;;'•Ij :)_ I .Ls:i:31112
I I I I I -- I '
(ii flt(,ij%•i lilt i I il'I1Il I'' (Il 'It Cd ti ULY 1 ttiM ia
.111'! tl Pi 't '.ti b. 'kai:_ tilt i I,'e • sflt
r
1 \j,efltJiJ j: £ 4
f '1 • in F pe ii •. ii GiL
I id 11Cc.. kt ltch •1 Ak U r u II 1 I-k ii 1
uc 1
II,r 1
aJiprlistl' t' e Lc I r'--%pn'nlt jjl !c •iir'
i
1 rh' 'tir
'\ffl LI C1 N U tis',tiish .2t 'a ,ta'l
Ic . tS 'iiti 1 0(111 1 1 li 1. •1 s ( h.'%t (1 ( 'ir Iitdi I" .)!nwI t 1 l'itl .tCl :1 jhC' . .i 't .1' )i I lJt II 4' i II V I r.' Iiti 1i% t 1 i-- :. ':ia liLt %t)L1i%uIt4s l'itl r.
aS it t * 0' 1.1(1
r• .'
'S j ' P 's
1
1 n'"S .1 1 . . a' -
'1' T:_-. 'I: :t .U.
at) .ttreefl . 1,1 tft f' •• Hn (
1
•tflL ' \.' en ,
nji
1 :t-1
\a4 Idj 1i( itWt II I 1 .%.t 'Ia. t(a b'% 3
pdlliitt '
1)01 liir it I. dl
I(ti1 ( lia 1(I ii
t;.)t iii. L)' ,:1:. tr•- :.; - - _- :'&Ii ..,r:'J
4) •,ijj
t i%t •.az.! I•. . '.n-- .1 --- :)s.I It Iij%
iii 'I' . I I
1
£ I • .• -.
•
.1"
i•
11 ii
'1 III
Fc t I.
• C (I
I - I. ----
I •
1 1
I I
'1
4
others also. He has stated that the value of the property was t3.00,000/- as on 3/2/1980 and after construction himself and his mother starred residing in the new house and his mother enu-usted I respondent to collect the rents of 4 shops and 1 house and to adjust the amount towa rds the loan and he used to collect the rents from 2 shop s and 5 residential premises.
30. He has stated that during the year 1981, the I respondent asked him and his mother to vacate the house and at that time. he filed the stilt and obtained injunction and after coming to know about the sale deed. his mother and himself came to the Court and filed the suit. He has stated that his parents i.e.. the appellant and her husb and were residing in the suit schedule property till their death and he is residing in the stilt schedule property since construction and he is the adopted son of the appellant and 211d plaintiff and in the school and other records the name of the parents is written as Ramakrishnappa and Narayanamma . Further iI1.l', Iii ii' Ii Ii •t, ii' 1 uk 'ii. 1 I 'ii lii' U s' ci' 1 nil' I i'41 I; 1' II It )(Si a .. 'til t ('1 9)( ilif ti"• in 11)11 16 sic tI,Ci • 11 11 1 tIC I I, .11 'it '" I t t11 j ttIs jj' ? . .
• .II% %i.j fit i:
Sill'. .tL . ' i
_
1 fl • '.I.1: • fttc )t.%
:
1
. ' 'ft
. d ;*;t I i ._tc S1't.I' Ii • '1 • .----piiias i:t t:."i'
-- La'
,1 tt _1 •.. r..1,
it,
t
•'
. _ • '3
's1 tr'p .11,. '.' '.. 1 .'
• ••.
I
I I • •' I. .
•.j.i - I
1 1
• , -- I
.1
4' • • 1
a 1
24
32. D.W. I is the lt respondent and he has dep osed that lie purchased the suit schedule pro perty from the appellant as per Ex.D• 1 and he was put In possession and after the purchase. he demolished the old building and constructed the new building. He has stated that he mortgaged the stilt schedule property to the Government and redeemed the mortgage and reconveyance deed has been executed in his favour. He has stated tha t he has paid the tax and money to the contractor for constru ction of the house and the contractor has issued receipts in his name. He stated that he has leased the building and coll ecting the rents and has not played any fraud on the appella nt.
33. In his cross-examination D.W. 1 has stat ed that himself and the appellant were living cordially and the appellant had confidence In him and he has obtained the sanctioned plan in the name of the appellant and after construction, the appellant was residin g In the suit schedule property with tier husband and they are In possession and he L 'I .1 ii I. --. • I •''--
I ' • a.
'1
S I'.
' III,.
I
4 11' 1 tI .I I
.t ' at • I: P 41
t t •• aj. • IV'.
Pill II i1d
liJt C)) fl)
4
1
)r I ft
)2'!lt s tl. .LlI
t 1(1:) 1 1
'J Ij1%
.Ig 4 '
jiB) t JIls iqi '.U9'" t( I '': 1UP1I.1i.IIIL atfi .prLT3 tL1 i;'w
I )1It'I J P U 1'
) 1 '1 '1 '1 LIt)
,baZ ;i ? I 1
C •• i .
1Sm
Li . g.
11 • '.1)
- t
d 7ai...u:.'
V.' j
--
. •'
r' • 1) --.ta.;; 1 a ;; •.fli.'..
I
Hf I) ' ' I IIP)1 I j)
' 1 91 "I
ii 1 It. 'C
I
1'
..:';
• I a' ••
I i a' •
1
t. I I
a ' --. p • • ed' • ft :'
•Z' tjj .:"iThI' 'Ijj t.:'.i La.,.,i £ • t'.' :
OS I Ut
at Hi 'I I 4 N
put s. 'i_LI it'. .1
•iu; • L •j --'
LT(44 ';alIT. ,za.,4ttj,a
I '• --• a' !)Z''\ ' ' i Iii 6 sitU J s\ 'ts pa'.d laju.
)4 1 1 UIPK
'I p
%T
'jj \, 'I.)_"'%!LtZ..I . ,;.i n •' '
•J . . .,
5' I t.i,I'%.7t1'!.
T k
1 4 ! t ii :. S ) a.'tI •
'ii Ill" I' I• ' I
4
I t ' it
I
I I
'Li 1 at
I I (J.j .5
•
t •t'u s•t
( --
1' I 4,
I •( t S (I ii
'9 . t. is I " 'it ')S
Ii..)," fl ) TI _, • :
'j I Ut- L
1.1 ),( 7 1 ' •I 4 .1 '1(1 , '-1"t''
L)'S 3It j' )7h
t
4 Jj' III K
"Lj I ', .1 iSit ' 't Qf.. I
j))L' 'I ',') U 1 11 ,IJ
11 If
' 1
- i'll -'L's
1T' C
1
'j UI. , (3(31' '
( tI7 15)11 I. 'C
'r rtw_. sq
•''"' 4 iii Iti 1 filLiP
, 1
f
1 )Y
l )' icIr'I,1 I.t-'"rI.tb .J I (JJ •t C
I j.11 '
9 I! I!j 'It. • : I '' 'L %.)( t.j t j c'
.1 'II
h!d I I' t tt i.t.' ,'nT" 'J e Ji I g LI g'I 'jj's I.Ti,
_) 1.3 iii '•A (' I t 1% 1. I II •) 1
,.' '
' •. cJ . ';,
' n d
' 14 :' ii i .L)l Ik'5j. jI L; 1i' f'%1,(' ':
F slalbit )--16 ' d i ' . i 1% P4
%tl knn I(4,E.1(1I •. 3 1 'L ) kid 13 C FT j). 1 I•1'
'ti) '4 % 1,1; ,rjj I 'he '1 III s.co:'fl;. 1Q41 Ii •IICU
till? (Ix. 1 j 'iCc i cL",,as id fl C £ £ t Liii
)j9C
36 h dcii I 'Ot •1' t• Ir
tr 1! La III : th, .1 'L a --.poi;dt lit c'IL ,,JotIi I
Ut tpt I a.i '.s 1 '.1" iJI TI I.
.•r
L
1
rr 'ti •1 '''
p I F
I..
t. ''U I V. 5.. 1 . £ C, . . ,'
. .1
It-li, I 'b0 I. I
1 1 'I
I .1
a
ii '
I •1 I'', •I
.3
I ii
1 1 1
I
2')
t.
sign the document which was already prepared. The
appellant, without knowing the contents of the document, has signed the document i.e,. Ex.Pl. The witnesses to Ex.P. 1 are.
the appellants husband and the wife of the first respondent.
Thereafter, the first respondent has mortgaged the property and borrowed a sum of t25,900/- from the Government and a sum of .25.OOO/- has been paid to the appellant as loan.
The sanctioned plan has been obtained in the name of the appellant as per Ex.P.2. In Ex.P.2. the appellant is shown as the owner. The first respondent has admitted this. The appellant and the first respondent have engaged PW.3 to demolish and put up the construction. PW.3 in his evidence has stated that he was engaged by the appellant to demolish and put up the construction and money was paid by the appellant and also the first respondent. He has stated that the appellant informed him to issue the receipts hi the name of the lIrsi respondent in respect of the payments made by her also. Therefore, it. is clear, the appellant and the 30 NI respondent have paid the money to put up the construction.
After the construction, the property has been let out.
37. PW. 1 i.e.. the appellant has deposed that she has let out the premises and she is collecting the rents from two shops and one tenant iii the fit-st floor. She has also stated that after the property was demolished and reconstructed, herself, her husband and the second defendant are residing In the suit schedule property.
38. The first respondent has stated that he has let out the premises and collecting the The first respondent rent?.
has not pleaded that he has let out the premises and collecting the rents. Therefore. the documents exhibits D.36 to D.43 are no consequence as there is no foundation in the pleadings. The first respondent has not pleaded that he has '4.
let out the premises and collecting.the rents. The appellant has pleaded that she has let out 4 premises and collecting the rents from the tenants. She has produced Ex.P.3. the rent receipts which show the appellant was collecting thc 1t I 31 v-f rents. The appellant, her husband and the second delèndant are residing in the still schedule premises.
39. From the evidence on record, it is clear, Inspite of Ex.Pl. the sanctioned plan and license have been taken in the name of the appellant. After reconstruction, the appellant, her husband and the second defendant are residing in the stilt schedule propeny and they are colleti ing the rents from the teiiants. PW.3 has deposed that money was paid by the appellant and also the first respondent for construction. The appellant has deposed that she borrowed money from her brother, widow of her husband's brother and tenants by way of advance and used her savings for COUS1 ruction. The first respondent has never resided in the suit schedule property.
40. The appellant has been taken to the Sub-Registrar's Office when she was drunk and without knowing I he coni ciii s of I he document her signat tire has been taken on Ex.P1. The Iirst respondent misrepresenting the i.
1
p i'Uut 'ii I 'It tcaI I jN)tT 'I tl'ii 11.1% j jkj
t
't' atLit iLc 'j'jst alt 1. P1 'i - 1. a Lit I
'I ' '
u
t ' a' ! I • I I
i I
S I It S %. tIh( lit
4 I u I)i. e alp • ru ( t jt 'ii NDGAwwA V'S.
BYRAPPA & 3 Others tp n'e din (1968) 2 8CR page 797 Ic S ' t)',t tt1 ib nih' ii sii-ik Ia ti-- ietis1t ft r€IiI'tlzvisi ti s( .t •itiJr fttxtixiti,c 'litIriin.)r-- itu t t ' 11' t: L. 'ic ' • c( '1 •lt i. C''' 1 ii 11 1i 1% .1 •' ,i 'IF, • I. 'C: 1 V •• 33 4
43. In the present case, there is misrepresentation with regard to character and contents of the document.
Therefore, Ex.P. 1 is a void document and it does not convey anything to the first respondent.
44. Similar view has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case reported In AIR 1977 Madhya Pradesh page 108, wherein it has been held, There is a clear distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of a document and as to Its contents. Where the misrepresentation is merely In respect of the contents of the document, the transaction becomcs voidable. Where it. relates also to the character of the transaction. then the transaction is rendered void."
45. in the present. case, the first respondent misrepresenting the appellant that he wants power of attorney, has taken the signature of the appellant on Ex.P. 1, without knowing the contents of the document. Therefore, the transaction Is void. Ex.P. 1 does not convey anything to 3,.
lh' ji;sT 1i St(,fl(i lit !h I rini C't.i U:i-- :;1%litIt d ii'
;;;;;j,i_ li:j. lii.' •' I.)! •% I• :'t 1% •I.1 I Ii. q .t1.'a t lia
r
'Vi 't.j ii at 'Ii' T
, j , i•
(I3C tiiilut (N rc
1 'I 1IflIflL.4fl(
(.1 ti1l
16 th ap ed ii
''if- Jtii,nit2iaCCI ji 1(111 cIfit' 4's'( I I. '('CI fl (1k'
1 Ii ci ) lit
i) O.S.V' 2577 :1 I J% lici elI' ' ' .1%I(It I I't
1)$Inh11 is c'c rc t ' Cliclat JILL that 1 P 1 %41(' d' id i' ' ui 1 and
1 ClOt' ''ol :'liHl 1:. iI)thl'l;' n:tj ;i :.nd iii '
ha I
a
x
a