Karnataka High Court
Union Of India Rep By Its Secretary vs N S Krishna Setty S/O Late Nama Subbaraya ... on 23 July, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
R.F.A.No.1470/2005
BETWEEN:
1.UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
SENA BAHVAN,
NEW DELHI-110 011.
2.BORDER STATION COMMANDER
AND ESTATE OFFICER,
STATION HEADQUARTERS,CUBBON ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3.THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMANDANT,
STATION HEADQUARTERS,
CELL ADJUSTMENT COMMANDER,
K.K. & G SUB AREA,
CUBBON ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
4.THE QUARTER MASTER,
ASC SOUTH,
BANGALORE-560 001.
5.THE DEFENSE ESTATE OFFICER,
KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE,
OFFICE OF THE DEFENCE ESTATE,
KAMARAJ ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: S.KALYANA BASAVARAJ, ADV.)
2
AND:
SRI.N.S.KRISHNA SETTY,
S/O LATE NAMA SUBBARAYA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21, VANNARPET,
BANGALORE CIVIL AREA,
BANGALORE-560 001
AS PER THE HON'BLE COURT ORDER
DATED 20/1/11; THE PROPOSED LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PROPOSED
RESPONDENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. N.K.SURYABHAGAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2. N.K.HARISH,
AGED 50 YEARS,
3. N.K.NAGRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
4. N.K.MANOJ KUMAR,
AGED 32 YEARS.
ALL ARE SONS OF LATE N.S.KRISHNA SHETTY,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.6, KRISHNA NIVAS,
1ST CROSS, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY EXTENSION,
DOUBLE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 027. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: B.C.RAJEEVA COUNSEL, FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI.P.SRINIVASAIAH COUNSEL FOR R4)
3
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96(1) OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.18.6.2005 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.8785/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESS. JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 18.06.2005, passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.8785/2002.
2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and has restrained the appellants, their men, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
3. Aggrieved by that, the appellants-defendants have filed this appeal.
4
4. The respondent is the plaintiff in the Trial Court and since dead he is represented by his LRs., The parties will be referred to with reference to their rank in the original suit O.S.No.8785/2002.
5. Briefly stated the facts are:
The respondent-plaintiff Sri.N.S.Krishna Setty filed suit in O.S.No.8785/2002 for permanent injunction. The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing No.21, Vannarpet, Bangalore Civil Area, Bangalore. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property was purchased by him through five sale-deeds dated 25.1.1969 and 27.1.1969 from the respective vendors namely N.Puttappa, A.Chowrappa, V.D'Souza and C.R.T.Naronah. The suit schedule property measures 39,852 sq. ft. It was known as 'Inam Sonnenahalli village'. The vendors of the plaintiff purchased their respective portions from their vendors 5 through registered sale-deeds during the years 1965 to 1968. In respect of some portions, there was litigation between the land owners and the jodidar of Sonnenahalli.
Suit came to be filed in O.S.No.70/1889. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred in Appeal No.4/1890. The judgment was passed in O.S.No.70/89 on 18.8.1890 and judgment was passed in Appeal No.4/90 on 8.8.1891. Thereafter, the original owners were in possession and enjoyment of their respective portions till they conveyed it.
6. It is stated, at the time of purchase, a plan was prepared to identify the total extent. Several vendors executed the sale-deeds through their power-of-attorney holders. The plaintiff also collected the sale-deed executed in favour N.C.Alumelu Ammal by Abdul Azeez in the year 1965. The plaintiff also obtained encumbrance certificate from 9.4.1957 to 9.4.1969. It is stated, the District Magistrate granted NOC for the construction of a permanent structure by passing a detailed order. At the time of 6 purchase, the suit schedule property consisted of a small structure. It was demolished and thereafter, the plaintiff constructed a pucca RCC building after obtaining sanctioned plan in LP.No.3475/67-68. The Corporation issued an endorsement transferring the katha in name of the plaintiff. In the year 1965, the Corporation issued notice under section 145 to one of the owners. The encumbrance certificate for the years 1969-1972 showing the sale transaction is produced. The property was assessed for tax. The plaintiff with the permission from the competent authorities, constructed a non-residential complex including a theatre in the name and style of "Balaji Theatre". The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as its owner from 1969. It is stated, some portions are in the occupation of the tenants who are running business. Some portions are let out for residential purpose. The plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. At no point of 7 time, the suit schedule property was in possession of the defendants.
7. On 26.12.2002, at about 5.00 p.m., some persons came near the suit schedule property claiming to be the officers of the defendant and threatened to dispossess and demolish the existing structure and illegally trespassed into the suit schedule property and caused demolition of some portion. Immediately, the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Police. The Police came to the suit schedule property and removed the obstructions. The Police advised the plaintiff to approach the Court. The plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 1969. The act of the defendants is illegal. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for permanent injunction. 8
8. The defendants have filed their written statement contending that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property. The land measuring 39.852 sq.ft. belongs to the Government of India, Defence Department and it was received through gazette notification Nop.184-P dated 23.7.1947, Government of Karnataka through their Land Acquisition Department after paying compensation to the claimants. The Bangalore City Corporation had no authority to issue property number to the property of the Government of India, Defence Department and No.21 furnished by the plaintiff is totally false and baseless. The plaintiff has no authority to purchase the property from anybody. The sale-deeds are concocted and got up documents. The plaintiff is aware that the suit schedule property is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Defence Department. The vendors i.e., A.Chowrappa, N.Puttappa, V.D'Souza and 9 C.R.T.Naronah are imaginary persons and they are not in existence.
9. It is denied that the suit schedule property was called as "Inam Sonnenahalli village". It is stated, the vendors had no right to sell the suit schedule property and the claim of the plaintiff is totally false. The suit schedule property is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendants. The documents produced by the plaintiff are concocted and fabricated. It is denied that there are tenants and they are in possession.
10. It is stated, the Government of India, Defence Department, received the suit schedule property from the Government of Karnataka, through Revenue Department and since then, the suit schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the defendants. After acquisition, the Defence Estate Officer took stock and the same was entered in the Military Land Register. Thereafter, the suit 10 schedule property has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendants. They are doing training operations regularly. It is denied that any incident occurred on 26.12.2002. It is stated, none of the men in uniform or others visited the civil area. The plaintiff has failed to furnish the material particulars regarding the persons who visited the place. It is stated, a written complaint was lodged on 26.12.2002 by one N.K.Nagaraj whose identity is not disclosed in the complaint. The complaint is not clear and no action was taken. The complaint is false and baseless.
11. It is stated, the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property and he was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The property was delivered to the Government of India, Defence Department and it was maintained by the Estate Officer. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 11
12. The Trial Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession, peaceful and exclusive enjoyment of the suit schedule property with a given boundaries and measurements as on the date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants without having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property attempting to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly without recourse to law thus causing interference?
3. If so, whether plaintiff is entitled to have a relief or perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed?
4. To what order and decree?
13. The Trial Court has answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and consequently, has decreed the suit 12 restraining the appellants, their men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
14. Aggrieved by that, the appellants-defendans have filed this appeal.
15. The respondent has filed cross-objection and it is not pressed.
16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further he submitted that there was no statutory notice as required under law. He also submitted that no decree for injunction can be granted against the true owner. Further he submitted that the Trial court having decreed the suit, ought to have reserved liberty for the appellants to take action in accordance with law. He 13 also submitted that the sale-deeds show that the eastern boundary is military land. Further he submitted that the documents produced by the defendants show that the plaintiff has encroached upon the land in Sy.No.277. Further he submitted that the extent of land is not forthcoming in Ex.P.25. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law.
17. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly decreed the suit and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference. Further he submitted that the statutory notice under section 80 of CPC has been dispensed with by order dated 31.12.2002. He also submitted that the plaintiff has claimed that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and nothing prevented the defendants from making counter 14 claim. He also submitted that the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as its owner. Further he submitted that the defendants have no right in the suit schedule property. He also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the suit schedule property is part of Sy.No.277. Further he submitted that no documents are produced to show that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property. He also submitted that, in the cross- examination, it is admitted that Sy.No.277 has nothing to do with the suit schedule property. DW.2 in his cross- examination has stated that the plaintiff and his tenants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He also submitted that the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and therefore, question of reserving liberty does not arise at all. He also invited my 15 attention to exhibits P.22, P.23 and P.27 and submitted that permission has been granted by the competent authority to construct cinema theatre and katha has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. He also referred to Ex.P.61 and submitted that injunction has been granted in O.S.No.1452/1995 in favour of the plaintiff. Further he submitted that Ex.D.7 shows that 10 acres of land in Sy.No.277 has been lost elsewhere. Further he submitted that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and therefore, the observation of the Trial court that the appellants can take action in accordance with law is wholly unnecessary and not required. Further he submitted that the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for interference.
16
18. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1968 SC page 534, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Court cannot not decide an issue not arising out of the pleadings.
19. Further placing reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1924 Calcutta page 600, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the incidental findings necessary for the judgment are also res judicata.
20. Further placing reliance on the decision reported in AIR (35) 1948 Nagpur page 358, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the doctrine of res judicata applies not only to the actual decision but also to the facts and grounds raised.
21. Further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1978 SC page 1283, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted 17 that not only res judicata but also constructive res judicata bars the subsequent proceedings.
22. Further Placing reliance on the decision reported in AIR 2003 Jharkhand page 17, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the question of title has to be decided by the Civil Court and not by an authority under any Act.
23. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC page 3056, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the observation of the Trial Court that the appellants can take action in accordance with law is wholly unnecessary.
24. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in exhibits P.2 to P.4, P.6, P.7, P.8 and P.9, the eastern boundary is shown as military land. Exhibits D.8 and D.7 show that there is encroachment of military land. He also submitted that there is no categorical finding 18 regarding title and incidentally, the Court has gone into question of title and therefore, liberty may to be reserved to the appellants to take action in accordance with law. He also submitted that the dimension of the property is not mentioned in exhibits P.25 and P.48. Further he submitted that there was no issue regarding title and therefore, any finding regarding title is only incidental and therefore, liberty may be reserved to the appellants to take action in accordance with law.
25. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 4 SCC page 594, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the scope of the suit was only permanent injunction and therefore, any finding regarding title is not conclusive.
26. Further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 3 SCC page 350, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that 19 it cannot be assumed that all issues are directly and substantially in issue. In the present case, the issue regarding title was not directly and substantially in issue and therefore, any finding is not conclusive.
27. Further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported (1999) 4 SCC page 403, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there can be no injunction against the true owner.
28. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law and liberty may be reserved to the appellants to take action in accordance with law.
29. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
30. The points that arise for my consideration are: 20
1) Whether the notice under section 80 of CPC was not issued and therefore, the suit is not maintainable?
2) Whether the injunction is granted against the true owner?
3) Whether liberty needs to be reserved for the appellants to take action in accordance with law?
4) Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for interference?
Point No.1:
31. It is relevant to note, the suit is for permanent injunction. The appellants contend that notice under Section 80 of CPC was not issued and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that application under Section 80(2) of CPC was filed and issuance of notice under Section 80 of CPC was dispensed with and therefore, the suit is maintainable. It is clear from the order sheet dated 30.12.2002 and 31.12.2002 that plaintiff filed an application under Section 80(2) of CPC praying to dispense with the notice under 21 Section 80 of CPC. The Trial Court, by its order dated 31.12.2002, has dispensed with the notice under Section 80 of CPC. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that notice under section 80 of CPC was not issued and therefore, suit is not maintainable. According, it is rejected. The suit is maintainable. Point No.1 answered accordingly. Point No.2
32. The appellants contend that the suit schedule property belongs to the Government of India, Defence Department and the property was received by the Defence Department vide Gazette notification No. 184-P, dated 23.07.1947. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
33. The defendants have produced Exs.D1 to D8. Ex.D1 is the authorisation letter authorising Sri Raghavendra Rao, the SDO-II to give evidence. Ex.D2 is 22 the representation to the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore to trace the Military land register produced by the appellants in OS No.1357/1982. Ex.D3 is the endorsement dated 08.10.2004 stating that inventory of the documents has been undertaken and it may take about three months. Ex.D4 is the Military land register which shows that Survey No.277 of Bangalore Kasaba, measuring 39 acres 21 guntas has been acquired prior to 1874. The land is under the control of G.E. vide SSO Bangalore letter No.2343/13/S dated 16.03.1939. Ex.D5 is the notification dated 23.07.1947 restoring the area known as Civil and Military station to His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore. Ex.D6 is the map of Military lands. Ex.D7 is the proceedings of the meeting held on 21.11.2001. It is stated that there has been long standing encroachment of 10 acres of defence land in Survey No.277. During February-1987 the Government of India suggested to the Government of Karnataka to take over the encroached land 23 on payment of full market value. It is stated that subsequent to the deliberations in various forums has not borne any result. It is recommended that State Government may take 10 acres of encroached land and give Defence Ministry an alternate land contiguous to the existing defence land in Bangalore. Ex.D8 is the letter dated 17.08.1999 addressed to the Secretary, Revenue Department, Bangalore-1. It is stated, the report has been obtained from the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk regarding encroachment of Military land. It gives the details of encroachment which indicates that one acre of land in Sy.No.277 has been encroached by Balaji Chitra Mandir. It is requested to allot 20 acres of land in Sy.Nos.26 or 27 of Kasavanahalli Village to the Defence Department.
34. From Exs.D1 to D8, it is clear, they are not documents of title. They do not prove title or possession of defendants to the suit schedule property. 24
35. The plaintiff claims that he has purchased the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has produced Exs.P1 to P97. Exs.P2 to P6 are the sale deeds dated 25.1.1969 and 27.01.1969 in favour of the plaintiff executed by his vendors N. Puttappa, Chowrappa, B. D'Souza, C.R.T. Noronha in respect of the suit schedule property. Exs.P8 to P11 are the sale deeds dated 21.07.1965 executed in favour of the vendors of the plaintiff. Ex.P12 is the sale deed dated 06.08.1965 executed by V. Abdul Azeez in favour of Smt.N.C.Alamelu Ammal. Ex.P13 is the sale deed executed in favour of N. Puttappa who in turn has sold the property in favour the plaintiff. Ex.P14 is the site plan in respect of property No.21. It shows that the Military land lies to the East of the suit schedule property. Exs.P15 to P17 are the encumbrance certificates. Exs.P18 and 19 are the tax paid receipts. Ex.P20 is the notice under Section 145 of the 25 Corporation Act. Ex.P21 is the plan showing the proposed building in property No.21. Ex.P22 is the order granting 'no objection' for construction of cinema theatre in the suit schedule property. Ex.P23 is the endorsement dated 28.04.1969 informing the plaintiff that Khata has been transferred in his name. Ex.P24 is the certificate showing that the property stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P25 is the assessment extract. It shows that property No.21 i.e. the suit schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P26 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.P27 shows that CTS No.1575 has been given to the suit schedule property. Ex.P29 is the property register extract. It shows the extent of the suit schedule property as 3673.6 square meters and the property stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P30 is the certificate regarding site and holding. Ex.P31 is the enquiry register of city survey number. Ex.P33 is the guide map. Ex.P34 is the receipt for having received the amount towards suit land. Ex.P35 is the cash memo. 26 Exs.P36 and P37 are the electricity bills. Ex.P38 is the water bill. Ex.P39 is the notification declaring slum area and the southern boundary is shown as Balaji Talkies. Ex.P40 is the complaint dated 26.12.2002 alleging that the Army people interfered with the possession of the plaintiff. Ex.P41 is the endorsement issued by the police. Ex.P42 is the certificate which shows that the Khata stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P43 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.P44 is the telephone bills. Ex.P45 is the receipt for having paid the telephone charges. Ex.P46 is the gate pass. Ex.P47 is the certificate indicating that the Khata stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P48 is assessment of tax. Ex.P60 is lease agreements, eighteen in number. Ex.P61 is the judgment in OS No.1452/1995. The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff granting injunction. Exs.P63 to 73 are photographs. Exhibits P75 and P76 are the statements of income for the years 1994-95 and 1995-
96. Exs.P77 to 81 are the income tax returns. Ex.P82 is 27 four challans regarding payment of direct tax. Ex.P83 is the voters list. Ex.P84 is the rent receipts. Ex.P90 is the Voters ID Card. Ex.P93 is the electricity bill. Ex.P85 is the ID Card. Exs.P86 and P87 are the rent receipts. Ex.P88 is the telephone bill. Ex.P89 is the electricity bill. Ex.P96 is the ration card and Ex.P97 is the ID card.
36. From the documents produced by the plaintiff, it is clear, the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from his vendors through registered sale deeds dated 25.1.1969 and 27.01.1969 i.e., Exs.P2 to P6. Thereafter, Khata has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has put up the structure. Ex.P22 is the order dated 29.07.1971 passed by the District Magistrate, Bangalore District, granting permission for construction of permanent cinema theatre on the site bearing No.21, Vannerpet, civil area, Bangalore. The said order has been passed after receiving 'no objection' from various authorities like City Improvement Trust Board, 28 Planning Authority, Corporation Commissioner, Director of Town Planning and Police Commissioner. Permission has been granted to the plaintiff for construction of permanent cinema theatre called as 'Balaji Theatre'. The suit schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff. After construction, the premises has been let out to various tenants for residential and non-residential purpose as per ExP.60 lease agreements. Telephone bills, water bills, electricity bills, photographs exhibits P50 to P55 and P63 to P67 clearly show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. From the evidence on record, it is clear, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he is the owner. In fact DW2 in his cross-examination has admitted that the plaintiff and his tenants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is clear, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
29
37. The defendants claim that Union of India is the owner of suit schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. They have not produced anything to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or regarding ownership. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in granting injunction holding that the plaintiff is the owner and he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.3
38. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Union of India, Defence Department, is the owner of the suit schedule property and the Trial court having decreed the suit for injunction ought to have reserved liberty for the appellants to claim back possession from the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the defendants that Union of India is the owner and they are in peaceful 30 possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants have failed to show that Union of India is the owner and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. There are no allegations of encroachment. Therefore, the observation of the trial court, "If at all the defendants have any semblance of right, title of interest over the suit schedule property, they are at liberty to initiate proceedings against the plaintiff for eviction only under due process of law and not otherwise"
was unnecessary. The plaintiff has proved that he is the owner and he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, liberty cannot be reserved. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. Point No.4
39. The Trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly decreed the suit granting injunction holding that the plaintiff is the owner and he in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 31 property. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
No costs, in the circumstances of the case.
SD/-
JUDGE Bss/Sbs*