Delhi High Court
Kamini Lal vs Raman Lal Sethi on 1 August, 2018
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 1st August, 2018
+ RFA 616/2017
KAMINI LAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sindhwani, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Janendra Lal, Mr.
Yasmin Tarapore & Mr. Sahil
Paul, Advs.
Versus
RAMAN LAL SETHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Robin P. David, Mr. Dhiraj
Philip & Mr. Febin Mathew,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 11 th
April, 2017 in CS No.56052/2017 of the Court of Additional District
Judge (ADJ)-03, New Delhi] allowing the suit filed by the respondent
/ plaintiff against the appellant / defendant for "ejectment, recovery of
possession and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and
permanent injunction".
2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 14 th July, 2017,
when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and subject to the
appellant / defendant depositing the entire decretal amount in this
Court, execution was stayed. The decretal amount is reported to have
been deposited and kept in FDR. Vide subsequent order dated 5 th
September, 2017, the appellant / defendant was further directed to
deposit future mesne profits also in this Court and the appeal was
RFA No.616/2017 Page 1 of 17
admitted for hearing and ordered to be listed in the category of
regulars and Trial Court record was requisitioned.
3. The respondent / plaintiff applied for early hearing and which
was allowed and the appeal ordered to be listed in the category of
'After Notice Miscellaneous Matters'. Vide subsequent order dated 7th
May, 2018, the decretal amount was ordered to be released to the
respondent / plaintiff / decree-holder subject to furnishing security.
The counsel for the respondent / plaintiff on enquiry states that the
respondent / plaintiff / decree-holder till date has not received the
decretal amount.
4. The senior counsel for the appellant / defendant and the counsel
for the respondent / plaintiff have been heard and the Suit Court record
requisitioned, perused.
5. The respondent / plaintiff instituted the suit, from which this
appeal arises, as per the amended plaint dated 18th May, 2016,
pleading that (i) the respondent / plaintiff is the absolute owner of
front portion of the ground floor of property No.3/44, Shanti Niketan,
New Delhi under the Will dated 12th December, 1984 of the father of
the respondent / plaintiff; (ii) the appellant / defendant is the sister of
the respondent / plaintiff and was in September, 1999, allowed to
reside in a part of the front portion of the ground floor aforesaid as a
tenant, by means of an oral Lease Deed, at a rental of Rs.15,000/- per
month and the appellant / defendant is running office of her companies
from the said front portion of the ground floor; (iii) as per the
agreement between the parties, the rent was to be paid on first day of
RFA No.616/2017 Page 2 of 17
every month and it was further agreed between the parties that the rent
shall be increased by "Rs.1,000/- every year since 2005"; (iv) under
the terms of the oral agreement, the appellant / defendant had paid a
sum of Rs.20,000/- per month till December, 2010 as rent; (v)
however, the appellant / defendant failed to discharge her obligations
under the agreement and failed to pay rent with effect from "January,
2001", inspite of repeated requests of the respondent / plaintiff; (vi)
the appellant / defendant had also not approached the respondent /
plaintiff for renewal of the lease agreement; (vii) respondent / plaintiff
sent a legal notice dated 13th July, 2013 terminating the "license" of
the appellant / defendant and requesting the appellant / defendant to
handover possession within 15 days of receipt of the notice; (viii) the
appellant / defendant sent a false and mischievous reply dated 2nd
August, 2013 to the notice; and, (ix) hence, the suit for ejectment and
recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.6,46,000/- and mesne profits with
effect from 13th July, 2013 with interest.
6. The appellant / defendant contested the suit, pleading that (i) the
appellant / defendant is a co-owner of the property No.3/44, Shanti
Niketan, New Delhi in which the respondent / plaintiff was residing in
one room with attached bathroom; (ii) the appellant / defendant "was
and is not a tenant in the premises as alleged or at all"; (iii) the
respondent / plaintiff is not the owner of the front portion of the
ground floor of the property and not entitled to maintain the suit; (iv)
the father of the parties only granted a right of residence to the
respondent / plaintiff in one room and attached bathroom in which the
respondent / plaintiff had been and was residing; (v) the appellant /
RFA No.616/2017 Page 3 of 17
defendant was not a Director or office bearer in either of the two
companies which were claimed to be running in the front portion of
the ground floor, with respect to which this suit was filed and the said
two companies were functioning from the rear area of the premises;
and, (vi) the appellant / defendant was not a monthly tenant and had
not made any payment by way of rent to the respondent / plaintiff and
the respondent / plaintiff was put to strict proof thereof.
7. In the aforesaid state of pleadings, the following issues were
framed in the suit on 29th February, 2016:
"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of ejection of defendant
front portion of the property shown in red in site plan
H.No.3/44, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.6.48 lacs with
arrears of rent? OPP
3. Relief."
and the following additional issue was framed thereafter:
"Whether plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit w.e.f. 13.07.2013
till actual handling of possession along with 18% interest?
OPP."
8. Though the senior counsel for the appellant/defendant
commenced the hearing by handing over a pedigree table of the family
to which the parties belong, but on enquiry whether not the suit was
by a landlord against a tenant, for ejectment, and in which suit title as
owner is irrelevant, the senior counsel for the appellant / defendant
agrees.
RFA No.616/2017 Page 4 of 17
9. Having gone through the impugned judgment and having not
found the learned ADJ to have referred to any admission or evidence
of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, it has straightaway
been enquired from the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff as to
what was the evidence led of existence of relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties or was there any admission of the appellant
/ defendant of existence of such relationship.
10. The counsel for the respondent / plaintiff first took me through
the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
given by the respondent / plaintiff to the appellant / defendant prior to
the institution of the suit and the reply of the appellant / defendant
thereto.
11. However, from the said notice and reply, no admission of the
appellant / defendant therein of existence of relationship could be
deciphered. On the contrary, the appellant / defendant in the reply
also, at the outset only denied the existence of relationship of landlord
and tenant.
12. However, since the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff is
pegging his case thereon and on the paragraphs of the impugned
judgment referred to herein below, for better appreciation, it is deemed
appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the notice and to
which attention is drawn, are as under:
"1. That my client is the absolute owner of the front portion of
the ground floor of the property bearing No.3/44, Shanti
Niketan, New Delhi. That you being the sister of my client
RFA No.616/2017 Page 5 of 17
were inducted in the part of the said front portion as a tenant
by means of an Oral Lease Deed at the rental of Rs.15,000/-
in September, 1999. That in the said premises you are
running your office of your companies such as M/s Turcon
India (P) Ltd. and Eries India (P) Ltd.
2. That under the terms of the agreement you were liable to pay the
said monthly rental by the 1st day of every month of the English
calendar. That you as per the mutual understanding between you
and my client the rent was revised from time to time. That finally
it was mutually decided that the monthly rental shall be increased
by Rs.1000/- after every year in 2009 when you were paying a
rent of Rs.19,000/-. That under the terms of the agreement you
paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- till December 2010 as the last rent.
However, you failed to discharge your obligations under
agreement and failed to make any rental for the period January
2011 and thereafter. That my client has made various requests
and demands to you to pay the user charges which is due and
recoverable to my client but you refused to accede to the
legitimate requests of my client."
and the relevant paragraphs of the reply of the counsel for
the appellant / defendant thereto, are as under:
1. That your client has not placed correct facts before you and this
has led you to send the notice dated 13.07.2013. In this regard it
is submitted that your client and my client are real brother and
sister. Their late father Mr. Ram Lal Sethi had executed a Will
dated 12.12.1984 by virtue of which the house property was
bequeathed in favour of my client Ms. Kamini Lal, her sister Ms.
Geeta Madhok, two sons of Shri Inder Lal Sethi i.e. Ashish Lal
Sethi and Anuj Lal Sethi and your client, Sh. Raman Lal Sethi as
per the portions of the property as indicated in the Will. In the
said Will late Sh. Ram Lal Sethi had given only living rights of
RFA No.616/2017 Page 6 of 17
the front occupied room with attached bathroom in favour of your
client in the eventuality of your client's not marrying legally. Sh.
Ashish Lal Sethi and Sh. Anuj Lal Sethi had executed a registered
relinquishment deed dated 23.12.1999 whereby they had
relinquished their share in the property in favour of my client
Mrs. Kamini Lal. The said relinquishment deed was acted upon
and your client Mr. Raman Lal Sethi had executed a 'No
Objection Certificate' stating that he had no objection to the
shares of Sh. Ashish Lal Sethi and Sh. Anuj Lal Sethi being
mutated in the name of Mrs. Kamini Lal in pursuance of the said
relinquishment deed. The contention of your client that he is the
absolute owner of the front portion of the ground floor of the
property bearing No.3/44, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi is wrong
and is denied.
2. The contents of para 2 of your notice are incorrect and are
denied."
13. The counsel for the respondent / plaintiff argues, that though in
para no.2 of the notice, detailed averments were made with respect to
the oral agreement between the parties and with respect to payment of
rent till December, 2010, but corresponding para no.2 of the reply is a
bare denial and cryptic and the appellant / defendant is bound to have
admitted the contents of para no.2 of the notice.
14. I am unable to agree. The Court, for applying the rules of
admission and deemed admission, cannot read portions of a document
selectively and the document has to be read as a whole. If the
draftsman of the document, in his / her own style, chooses to say
everything in one of the paragraphs and thereafter does not deem it
appropriate to reproduce the same thing in each and every paragraph,
RFA No.616/2017 Page 7 of 17
no cannon of interpretation of document provides for deemed
admission to be drawn therefrom. The legal process has to avoid
verbosity and waste of time and once a stand has been pleaded at one
place, there is no need to reiterate the same in response to each and
every paragraph wheresoever the claim has been repeatedly made.
15. The Division Bench of this Court in Charanjit Singh Vs. Kehar
Singh 2006 SCC OnLine Del 578 has held that the essential feature of
admission is that it should be concise and deliberate; it must not be
something that was not intended and was not the intention of the
party; where the defendant has raised objection which will go to the
very root of the case, it will not be appropriate to exercise discretion,
implicit in judgment on admissions, in favour of plaintiff. Another
Division Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Chawla Vs. Lucas Indian
Services AIR 2006 Delhi 266 finding, in the facts of that case, that the
admission in a letter of the defendant of receipt of goods of the value
claimed by the plaintiff to be coupled with a plea of a meeting with the
plaintiff in which it was agreed that the plaintiff will take back some
other goods and release payment thereof, it was held that no decree on
admission could have been passed. Relying on the abovementioned
judgments, the Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Gupta Vs. Ashok
Kumar Gupta 2007 (95) DRJ 167 [and SLP(C) No.7627/2007
preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 4th May, 2007] has also held
that a pleading or a document has to be construed or read as a whole to
see its effect and one or two lines cannot be permitted to be taken out
of context and used as an admission of a party, entitling the other for
passing of a judgment upon admissions. It was held to be an accepted
RFA No.616/2017 Page 8 of 17
norm of reading and interpretation of reading, that they must be read
in entirety or at least in a manner that would not frustrate the very
claim of party raised in the pleadings. Another Division Bench of this
Court in Puran Chand Packaging Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sona Devi
ILR (2008) II Del 200 held that while passing judgment on basis of
admission, the document has to be read as a whole and the Court is not
to take out one or two sentences so as to treat it as an admission. I
also, in Kishan Lal Chhabra Vs. Anil Arora ILR (2009) V Del 92
held that a line or paragraph here or there and without reference to the
context cannot be picked up for the purpose of a decree under Order
XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
16. The counsel for the respondent / plaintiff has then drawn
attention to para no.1 of the preliminary objections of the written
statement of the appellant defendant as under:
"1. That the suit as framed is not maintainable. The Defendant is a
co owner of the property bearing No.3/44, Shanti Niketan, New
Delhi, (referred to as the "Suit Property") in which the plaintiff is
residing in one room and attached bathroom. The Defendant was
and is not a tenant in the premises as alleged or at all."
17. I am unable to see as to how an admission of relationship of
landlord-tenant is sought to be drawn therefrom. The appellant /
defendant therein is rather found to have categorically pleaded that she
was not a tenant in the premises as alleged or at all.
18. The only other argument of the counsel for the respondent /
plaintiff is, that the learned ADJ, in the impugned judgment, has held
as under:
RFA No.616/2017 Page 9 of 17
"15. As far as this issue is concerned, it is specific case of the
plaintiff that he allowed his defendant sister to occupy the front portion
shown in red in site plan Ex.PW1/1 and that he inducted her as a tenant
over a lease at a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- in September, 1999 and
that she had been running two companies there from. It would be handy
to reproduce the relevant paras of the pleadings.
Para 4 and 5 of the plaint-
4. That the defendant is sister of plaintiff was
allowed to in the part of the said portion as a tenant by
means of an Oral Lease Deed at the rental of Rs.15,000/-
in September 1999. That in the said premises you are
running office of your companies such as M/s Turcon
India (P) Ltd. and Eries India (P) Ltd.
5. That as per the agreement between both the
parties the monthly rent of the rented premises was
Rs.15,000/- in September, 1999 and the defendant will be
liable to pay on every 1st day of every month of the
English calendar. That it was also mutually agreed
between the parties that the rent shall be increased by
Rs.1,000/- every year since 2005.
16. Even though specific allegations were levelled against
defendant, in the reply all that the defendant has stated in her written
statement as under-
Paras 4 and 5 -
4. With reference to Para 4 of the plaint, the same
is wrong and denied. The defendant is not a Director, or
office bearer in either of the two companies, nor has been
running offices in the front portion of the premises as
falsely alleged or at all. It is submitted that the said two
independent companies have and / or had been
functioning from the rear area of the premises.
RFA No.616/2017 Page 10 of 17
5. With reference to Para 5 of the Written
Statement, the same is wrong and denied. It is denied
that the defendant was a monthly tenant as alleged."
and has thereafter, reproducing the provisions of Rules 3 to 5 of Order
VIII of the CPC, held as under:
"Accordingly it is found that all the demands are evasive and
hence deserves to be taken as admitted.
17. Other than the above it is argued by ld. counsel for defendant that
in preliminary objection no.1 defendant has specifically denied that she
was a tenant to the plaintiff in following words "the defendant was and is
not a tenant in the premises as alleged or at all." Plain reading of this
sentence, in the manner it is worded, gives an impression that defendant
Kamini Lal was plaintiff's tenant but is not a tenant any more. Ld.
counsel for defendant submits that the sentence should have been worded
in a better way that so as to convey that defendant was never was and is
still not a tenant to the plaintiff.
19. It is admitted case of both the sides that defendant got portion of
mezzanine floor and that their father Shri Ram Lal Sethi specifically
averred that she should not get any right in the ground floor of the
property. Conjoint reading of paras 7 and 9 shows that the entire back
portion was bequeathed to grandsons Ashish and Anuj while qua the front
portion, as on the date of execution of the Will, one room with bathroom
was exclusive occupation with the plaintiff while one room with
bathroom adjoining the plaintiff's room was with the testator Shri Roshan
Lal Sethi. The common areas i.e. drawing cum dinning, store with
bathroom, varandha and lawn were to remain under common use by
plaintiff, testator's brother Shri Roshan Lal Sethi as well as testator's
grandson Aashish and Anuj.
20. It was so provided by the testator that in case plaintiff marries, he
will inherit the entire front portion including three rooms, dining, drawing
apart from varandha and lawn but in case he do not marry, he will
RFA No.616/2017 Page 11 of 17
continue to occupy his room apart from attached bathroom alongwith
from common usage of remaining front portion. In case of his demise,
the entire front portion would be inherited by grandsons Aashish and
Anuj.
21. It is in this backdrop the defendant had tried to make up a case by
claiming that she has got executed a relinquishment deed from Aashish
and Anuj qua the entire ground floor including the complete back portion
and the front portion. Even though a plea was raised in the written
statement but no such document was filed or proved by the defendant on
record. This bald plea is of no avail to the defendant. In case according
to defendant she had document whereby she has acquired all the rights
and interest of Aashish and Anuj, it was imperative that she should have
filed the document on record so as to prove her plea and also prove the
legitimacy of her possession which according to her she got other than the
oral tenancy from the plaintiff."
and thereafter, reproducing Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872,
has held as under:
22. This failure on the part of defendant calls for adverse inference
against her.
23. At this juncture it would be necessary to test the plea of defendant
as to what rights Aashish and Anuj had with them, which they allegedly
transferred to the defendant. Para 9 of the Will clearly shows that no right
whatsoever in the entire front portion shows in red in the site plan was
inherited by Aashish and Anuj by virtue of this Will. They cannot
transfer this right during the lifetime of plaintiff. Their right to
inheritance can be permanently taken away of the act of the plaintiff of
contacting a legal marriage even as on date today. In this backdrop the
plea of the defendant that she has taken all the rights of the grand children
Aashish and Anuj is untenable as no such right existed as on date when
the claimed document was executed. As far as reference to para 15 of the
Will is concerned, the only right which was granted by the testator to the
RFA No.616/2017 Page 12 of 17
grand children was joint usage of common area i.e. kitchen, dining place,
front veranda and lawn. This joint usage was common to the plaintiff,
late Shri Roshan Lal Sethi who died in 1992 and the two grand children.
The rights in usage could not have been transferred by the grand children
to the defendant during the lifetime of plaintiff Shri Raman Lal Sethi.
25. A lot of stress is laid down by the ld. counsel for the plaintiff
specifically that plaintiff is owner of the front portion but perusal of Will
nowhere shows that he will become the owner until he gets married.
Defendant say that he has an exclusive possession of only one room and
bathroom which he continued till date and as such there is no occasion for
him to induct defendant Smt. Kamini Lal as a tenant. In a limited sense
this submission of Ld. Counsel for defendant is correct when he
controvert the plaintiff's front portion of the suit property simply because
the Will in its own wisdom does not confer this right as on date as he is
still a bachelor. Having said this, I see no reason as to why plaintiff is
required in law to first establish ownership as a landlord.
27. The combined reading of the same shows that the suit property is
assessed in the name of plaintiff. Even though defendant claims that she
is in occupation of the entire front portion of the ground floor except the
plaintiff's room and the bathroom, she has not filed anything on record to
show that the portion has been assessed in her name for the House Tax
Records.
28. In view of the above discussion, once it is found that there is a
clear admission on the part of the defendant and coupled with the facts
that plaintiff has shown that he was in exclusive possession of portion
shown in green by virtue of pre-ponderance of probably that this Court
has no hesitation that they are exist a landlord tenant relationship. The
conclusion is further fortified by the fact that defendant has failed to
establish on record as to how she came into possession of the front
portion shows in red.
29. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant."
RFA No.616/2017 Page 13 of 17
19. The counsel for the respondent / plaintiff has emphasised that as
held in the impugned order, while the respondent / plaintiff in para 4
has pleaded induction of the appellant / defendant as a tenant, the
appellant / defendant in response thereto has not expressly denied the
oral Lease Deed at the rental of Rs.15,000/- per month in September,
1999 and has only denied being a Director in the companies which
were pleaded by the respondent / plaintiff and has thereby admitted
the plea in the plaint of oral tenancy.
20. The provisions of Rules 3 to 5 of Order VIII of the CPC, relying
whereon the learned ADJ has held the pleadings aforesaid to be a case
of non-specific denial and thus admission, are not intended to allow a
litigant to spring a surprise or steal a march on the opponent and have
to be read in a reasonable and intelligent manner. As aforesaid, no
provision of law requires the pleadings to be repetitive. Once a denial
has been made in pleadings and / or a claim has been made which is
inconsistent with the claim made by the opponent amounting to denial
or non-acceptance of the claim made by the opponent, the provisions
of Rules 3 to 5 of Order VIII cannot be invoked by referring to the
paragraph in which the stand taken at another place is not repeated.
21. Today, the legal system of the country is faced with paucity of
time. It is a well-known fact that as the volume of the case file
increases, so does the length of time for which it remains pending. I
am thus unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned ADJ, on
a selective reading of the documents and the pleadings. Suffice it is to
state that in the preliminary objections in the written statement, the
RFA No.616/2017 Page 14 of 17
appellant / defendant had taken a stand of being in occupation of the
portion in her own right, as owner, and not as tenant of the respondent
/ plaintiff.
22. The learned ADJ, in my opinion, has also misconstrued the
words, "the defendant was and is not tenant in the premises as alleged
or at all". The said words cannot be construed as an admission of
being a tenant in the past and the tenancy having come to an end.
Attention is not drawn to any part of the cross examination of the
appellant / defendant by the respondent / plaintiff wherein the counsel
for the respondent / plaintiff may have put the said interpretation of
the written statement to the appellant / defendant or given the
appellant / defendant an opportunity to explain the same.
23. Similarly, Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act only allows the
Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to
have happened in the normal course of natural events and human
conduct. The learned ADJ, merely by referring thereto, has proceeded
on the presumption that occupation of a premises raised a presumption
of occupation as a tenant. There is no such presumption in law,
specially when the parties are brother and sister and the house with
respect to which the suit is filed was of the father of the parties.
Neither has the learned ADJ cited any dicta wherein it may have been
held that occupation of the premises is to be presumed as occupation
as a tenant, nor has the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff today also
cited any. On the contrary, Division Bench of this Court in Prem Pal
Singh Vs. Jugal Kishore Gupta (1993) 50 DLT 49 held that tenancy
RFA No.616/2017 Page 15 of 17
rights are created by contract under the statute i.e. the Transfer of
Property Act and Court has to be satisfied that in fact tenancy existed
and mere statement is not enough. In Vikas Jain Vs. Naresh Kumar
2012 SCC OnLine Del 778 it was held that in law, a person cannot be
called upon to prove a negative i.e. that the opponent, claiming to be
tenant, was not a tenant and the owner would be entitled to possession
unless the occupant proved tenancy claimed.
24. I am also reminded of what the Division Bench has observed in
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Natco Pharma Ltd. 210
(2014) DLT 591 regarding the state of pleadings and the litigation in
this country. It has been held that though the British Courts treated the
Indian litigants and Indian advocates to be not deft at drafting but
unfortunately the same position continues till date. The lacuna, even
if any in the pleadings or in the reply, on the part of the appellant /
defendant, as has been read by the learned ADJ, can at best be blamed
on a case of poor drafting and by no stretch of imagination can any
deemed admission be drawn therefrom.
25. The learned ADJ, in the impugned judgment, also appears to
have been unduly swayed by the appellant / defendant having failed to
substantiate and prove her claim of ownership of the property,
forgetting that the suit which was for adjudication was not a title suit
but a suit between a landlord and tenant, paying court fees on annual
rent, as in a suit between landlord and tenant and not court fees on
market value of the property, as payable on a suit for recovery of
possession or on a title suit.
RFA No.616/2017 Page 16 of 17
26. Thus, once the respondent / plaintiff had failed to prove
relationship of landlord and tenant, which was in issue, irrespective of
whether the appellant / defendant had substantiated and proved her
title, a decree for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne
profits could not have followed.
27. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed.
28. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside.
29. The suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff, from which this
appeal arises, is dismissed. However, owing to the relationship
between the parties, I refrain from imposing costs on the respondent /
plaintiff.
30. The amounts deposited by the appellant / defendant in this
Court together with interest accrued thereon be refunded to the
appellant / defendant.
31. The date of 13th August, 2018 before the Registrar General is
cancelled.
Decree sheet be drawn up.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AUGUST 01, 2018 'gsr'..
RFA No.616/2017 Page 17 of 17