Madras High Court
Janarthanan vs Vijaya on 24 June, 2015
Author: M.Duraiswamy
Bench: M.Duraiswamy
Reserved on : 17.06.2015 Delivered on : 24.06.2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24.06.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(PD).No.2096 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 Janarthanan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Vijaya 2.Vaithi Nattar 3.Periyanayagi Ammal 4.Kalavathy 5.Rajan Babu 6.Vasantha 7.Seenuvasan ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.463 of 2011 in O.S.No.97 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, dated 30.03.2012. For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Jagadish For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Senior Counsel for Mr.Vediappan for M/s.C.S.Associates (R1) Mr.V.Sivalingam (R6) Mr.A.P.Balasubramani (R7) R2, R4, R5 No appearance R3 Died (T/E) O R D E R
Challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.463 of 2011 in O.S.No.97 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, the 3rd defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2.The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2011 for partition and for mesne profits.
3.In the plaint, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has stated that the respondents 2 & 3/defendants 1 & 2 are her parents, the petitioner & the 7th respondent/defendants 3 & 4 are her younger brothers, the 6th respondent/7th defendant is her elder sister and the respondents 4 & 5/defendants 5 & 6 are the wife and son of the petitioner/3rd defendant. Further, the plaintiff has stated that on 26.04.1955 her grandfather Ramasamy Nattar divided his properties by a registered Partition Deed between himself and his three sons, viz., the 1st defendant/Vaithi Nattar, his two brothers Sivalinga Nattar and Chokkalinga Nattar.
4.The A Schedule properties were allotted to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant will also get one-third share of the properties after the lifetime of his parents. The one-third share allotted to the 1st defendant has been described as B Schedule properties. Therefore, both A and B Schedule properties are ancestral properties allotted to the share of the 1st defendant. The C Schedule properties are the suit properties, which comprises of both the ancestral properties as well as the newly purchased properties of the 1st defendant.
5.According to the plaintiff, the newly purchased properties were purchased out of the income derived from the ancestral properties viz., A & B Schedule properties. The properties purchased in the name of the defendants 5 & 6 were purchased out of the income from the ancestral properties. According to the plaintiff, there is no cordial relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 on account of certain misunderstandings. The defendants 1 to 4 have stopped giving the legitimate share of income from the suit properties to the plaintiff and to her sister/the 7th defendant.
6.According to the 1st defendant, his grandfather's name is also Vaithi Nattar and his father is Ramasamy Nattar, who died on 21.11.1972. The 1st defendant admitted the Partition Deed dated 26.04.1955 and that the A Schedule properties were allotted to his share. Further, the 1st defendant has stated that A Schedule properties are the separate properties of his father Ramasamy Nattar and that the said Ramasamy has not inherited any property from his father Vaithi Nattar. Similarly, the B Schedule properties are the properties inherited by the 1st defendant after the death of his father Ramasamy. Further, the 1st defendant has stated that during the life time of Ramasamy, he conveyed those properties under a registered Sale Deed dated 07.09.1970 to him and to Chokkalinga Nattar and from the said Chokkalinga Nattar, the 3rd defendant purchased the properties. Further, the 1st defendant contended that by a Partition Deed dated 14.06.1993, the properties were divided and the B Schedule Item 1 was allotted to the 3rd defendant and Item 2 belongs to the 4th defendant.
7.The 1st defendant contended that after the death of Ramasamy on 21.11.1972 any property inherited from him by the 1st defendant, after the advent of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, shall be his separate property. The B Schedule properties were allotted to the share of the defendants 3 & 4 under the registered Partition Deed dated 14.06.1993 and it does not belong to the 1st defendant. The C Schedule properties are not the properties purchased out of the income from any ancestral properties and they are the separate properties of the defendants 3 & 4 as well as the defendants 5 & 6. The 1st defendant contended that by virtue of Section 6 (5) of the Hindu Succession Act, nothing contained in the amended Section 6 is applicable to the plaintiff in view of the registered partition among the defendants 1, 3 & 4 having taken place before 20.12.2004. The plaintiff was married on 02.07.1974 and the 7th defendant got married in the year 1969 and as such, they are not entitled to become coparceners by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990. The plaintiff had instituted the vexatious suit, which is liable to be dismissed in view of the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment Act 2005) (Act 39 of 2005).
8.In this background of the case, the defendants 3 & 4 filed an application in I.A.No.463 of 2011 in O.S.No.97 of 2011 under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code to stop all further proceedings and direct the suit filed by the plaintiff to be struck off from the file. The application was contested by the plaintiff and the 7th defendant stating that the amendments made in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 under Act 39 of 2005 is against the fundamental right conferred on a female under the Constitution of India. Further, they have stated that none of the Government have right to enact any law by taking away the right or to abridge the right of any female by discriminating the female from male by mere sex as female. Further, they have stated that the amendment is ultra vires, unconstitutional and void ab initio. The plaintiff and the 7th defendant have also stated that the amendment made by the Government of Tamil Nadu in Hindu Succession Act by incorporating a new Section viz., Section 29A is against the fundamental rights conferred on a female as equal to male in India. Therefore, the Section 29A is ultra vires, unconstitutional and not binding on the plaintiff and the 7th defendant. The trial Court found that the issue involved in the suit can be decided only after oral and documentary evidences and therefore, dismissed the application on this ground. Aggrieved over the same, the 3rd defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
9.Heard Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, Mr.V.Sivalingam, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent and Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.
10.Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Civil Court cannot decide the vires of the Amendment Act 39 of 2005 and the vires of the Act can be challenged only before a Constitutional Court viz., High Court or the Supreme Court. Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the trial Court should have allowed the application filed by the defendants 3 & 4 and struck off the suit. Further, the learned senior counsel contended that the plaintiff has filed the vexatious suit in spite of knowing the legal position and only to harass the defendants 1 to 6. That apart, the learned senior counsel also contended that the Principal District Court, Villupuram has no jurisdiction to declare the Amendment Act 39 of 2005 as unconstitutional. Unless the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (Amended Act 39 of 2005) is declared as unconstitutional, ultra vires, the plaintiff and the 7th defendant cannot claim a share in the properties.
11.In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments:
(i)(2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 268 [State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India and another] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
20.By way of the present amendment, the plaintiff State of M.P. is seeking to challenge the validity of the Central law in a proceeding (suit) initiated under Article 131 of the Constitution. Normally, for questions relating to validity of Central or other laws, the appropriate forum is the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition and not an original suit filed under Article 131 which vests exclusive jurisdiction on this Court as regards the disputes enumerated therein. It is relevant to point out that Article 131-A of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, provides for exclusive jurisdiction to this Court in regard to questions as to constitutionality of Central laws. The said Article 131-A viewed as substantially curtailing the power of judicial review of the writ courts, that is, the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 was omitted vide the Constitution (forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977. It follows that when the Central laws can be challenged in the State High Courts as well and also before this Court under Article 32, normally, no recourse can be permitted to challenge the validity of a Central law under the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided under Article 131.
(ii)2014 (5) CTC 353 [Shri Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari and others Vs. Omprakash Shankar Bhandari and others] wherein a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held as follows:
22.On 20th December 2004, the Hindu Succession Amendment Bill 2004 was introduced in the Rajyasabha, inter alia, seeking to amend the erstwhile Section 6 and doing away/omitting the erstwhile Section 23 of the Principal Act. Statement of Objects and Reasons for amending the 'Principal Act' read as follows:-
Statement of Objects and Reasons The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has amended and codified the law relating to intestate succession Hindus and gave rights which were till then unknown in relation to women's property. However, it does not interfere with the special rights of those, who are members of Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary except to provide Rules for Devolution of the interest of a deceased male in certain cases. The Act lays down a uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and applies, inter alia, to persons governed by the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools and also to those governed previously by the Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudiri laws. The Act applies to every person, who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Parathana or Arya Samaj; or to any person who is Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion; or to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion. In the case of a testamentary disposition, this Act does not apply and the interest of the deceased is governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
2.Section 6 of the Act deals with devolution of interest of a male Hindu in Coparcenary property and recognizes the Rule of Devolution by survivorship among the members of the coparcenary. The retention of the Mitakshara Coparcenary property without including the females in it means that the females cannot inherit in ancestral property as their male counterparts to. The law by excluding the daughter from participating in the coparcenary ownership not only contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender but also has led to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution. Having regard to the need of render social justice to women, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra have made necessary changes in the law giving equal right to daughters in Hindu Mitakshara Coparcenary property. The Kerala Legislature has enacted the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975.
3.It is proposed to remove the discrimination as contained in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara Coparcenary property as the sons have. Section 23 of the Act disentitles a female heir to ask for partition in respect of a dwelling house wholly occupied by a Joint family until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein. It is also proposed to omit the said section so as to remove the disability on female heirs contained in that section.
4.The above proposals are based on the recommendations of the Law Commission of India as contained in its 174th Report on 'Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reform under the Hindu Law'.
5.The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."
...
25. Thereafter on 9th September, 2005, the Amendment Act, 2005 came to be passed as Act 39 of 2005. Section 3 of the Amending Act substituted erstwhile Section 6 of the Principal Act. The Amendment Act, 2005 did away with exclusion of married daughter from getting the benefit of the amendment and also added a proviso to Section 6(1) of the Principal Act saving partitions done prior to 20th December 2004 (the date of introduction of the Bill in Rajya Sabha). The Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Principal Act provided that for the purposes of the Section 6 of the Act partition only means partition by registered document or decree of Court.
Questions (a) & (d)
26. Keeping the above historical development of law in mind, we shall now consider the questions referred to us by the learned Single Judge. Questions A & D will have to be taken up together.
Question (a) - Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act is prospective or retrospective in operation?
Question (d) - Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 as amended by the Amendment Act, 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? ...
53. In view of above discussion, in our view the correct legal position is that Section 6, as amended by the 2005 Amendment Act is retroactive in nature meaning thereby the rights under Section 6(1)(b) and (c), and under sub-rule (2) are available to all daughters living on the date of coming into force of the 2005 Amendment Act i.e. on 9th September 2005, though born prior to 9th September 2005. Obviously, the daughters born on or after 9th September 2005 are entitled to get the benefits of Amended Section 6 of the Act under Clause (a) of sub-section (1). In other words, the heirs of daughters, who died before 9th September 2005 do not get the benefits of amended Section 6.
Questions (b) & (c)
54. So far as questions (b) & (c) are concerned, they are being considered together, as the discussion would be common. So far as question (d) is concerned, it is already answered while dealing with question (a).
(b) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act, applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956?
(c) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act, applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? ...
77. In view of the above discussion, we now answer the questions posed in the reference for our opinion as under:
(I) Question (a) - Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2005 is retroactive in operation, as explained in this Judgment.
In brief :
Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of amended Section 6, is prospective in operation;
Clauses (b)& (c) and other parts of sub-section (1) as well as sub-section (2) of amended Section 6, are retroactive in operation, as indicated hereinafter.
(II) Questions (b), (c) & (d): Amended Section 6, applies to daughters born prior to 17th June 1956 or thereafter (between 17th June 1956 and 8th September 2005), provided they are alive on 9th September 2005 that is on the date when the Amendment Act of 2005 came into force. Admittedly amended Section 6, applies to daughters born on or after 9th September 2005;
(III) Question (e) - Yes. Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vaishali S. Ganorkar is per incurium the Supreme Court decision in Ganduri Koteshwaramma case.
(iii)AIR 2010 Karnataka 124 [Pushpalatha N.V. Vs. V.Padma] wherein the Karnataka High Court held as follows:
78.A registered partition deed could not be prepared, antedated and registered after the coming into force of the Act, Similarly a final decree for partition cannot be created or manipulated, just to deny the daughters their legitimate share in the coparcenary property, and a partition by registered instrument and a final decree for partition that attained finality would reflect the bona fide conduct of the parties in the normal circumstances. They did not want those transactions to be affected by the substituted Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, a partition effected in the aforesaid two manner before 20th December, 2004 were kept away from the purview of Section 6. Except those two circumstances, whatever may be the course of conduct of the parties, the daughter of a coparcener was conferred a right in such property equal to that of a son.
12.Countering the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare the Amendment Act 39 of 2005 as ultra vires and unconstitutional in view of Order XXVII-A of the Civil Procedure Code. Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the plaintiff and the 7th defendant are entitled to a share in the properties and they are also coparceners by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act because their father viz., the 1st defendant is very much alive.
13.In support of his contention the learned senior counsel relied upon a judgment reported in 2014 (2) CTC 113 [K.M.Thangavel and others Vs. K.T.Udayakumar and another] wherein this Court held as follows:
45.In this case, such a difficulty in applying the provisions of the Amending Act has not arisen, because the father was very much alive, both on the date on which the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act came into force and the date on which the Central Amendment made by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force. The father is also alive even as on today. Therefore, this Court does have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the daughters of the First Defendant, namely K.M.Thangavel have become Coparceners by virtue of new Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act introduced by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and they are entitled to equal shares as they would have had if they had been sons.
14.On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned senior counsel on either side, it could be seen that on 26.04.1955 there was a registered Partition Deed executed between the grandfather of the plaintiff viz., Ramasamy Nattar and his three sons viz., Vaithi Nattar, Sivalinga Nattar and Chokkalinga Nattar. In the said partition, A Schedule properties were allotted to the 1st defendant. In the plaint, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has stated that the respondents 2 & 3/defendants 1 & 2 are her parents, the petitioner & 7th respondent/defendants 3 & 4 are her younger brothers, the 6th respondent/ 7th defendant is her elder sister and the respondents 4 & 5/defendants 5 & 6 are the wife and son of the petitioner/3rd defendant. The grandfather of the plaintiff died on 21.11.1972. During his life time, under a registered Sale Deed dated 07.09.1970, he conveyed the properties to the 1st defendant and to Chokkalinga Nattar. The 3rd defendant purchased the properties from the said Chokkalinga Nattar. Under the registered Partition Deed dated 14.06.1993, the 3rd defendant was allotted Item 1 under the B Schedule properties and Item 2 was allotted to the 4th defendant. The last Item of A Schedule properties in Survey No.269/2 was allotted to the share of the 3rd defendant under a registered Partition Deed 14.06.1993.
15.According to the contesting defendants 1 to 6, the plaintiff, the 7th defendant and their respective husbands are aware of the registered Partition Deed dated 14.06.1993. The 1st defendant also contended that the respective husbands of the plaintiff and the 7th defendant are lawyers. After the advent of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the properties inherited by the 1st defendant from his father Ramasamy Nattar, who died on 21.11.1972 shall be the separate properties of the 1st defendant. Therefore, the B Schedule properties can be construed only as the separate properties of the 1st defendant. Further, the 1st defendant has stated that Items 1 and 2 of A Schedule properties had been settled in favour of the 4th defendant under the registered Settlement Deed dated 24.02.2009 by the 1st defendant and he alone is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties and the rest of the A Schedule properties had been alienated long back by the 1st defendant and the same does not belong the 1st defendant at all. The B Schedule properties had been allotted to the share of the defendants 3 & 4 in the registered Partition Deed dated 14.06.1993. The registered Partition Deed dated 14.06.1993 was produced by the 1st defendant along with his written statement.
16.The contesting defendants contended that the plaintiff was married on 02.07.1974 and the 7th defendant was married in the year 1969 and as such, they are not entitled to become the coparceners by virtue of Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 and in view of the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment Act 39 of 2005). In view of the registered Partition Deed dated 14.06.1993, the plaintiff and the 7th defendant are not entitled for a share in the properties. However, the plaintiff and the 7th defendant contended that the amendment made by the Government of Tamil Nadu in Hindu Succession Act by incorporating Section 29A is against the fundamental rights conferred in the female as against the male in India and also contended that the Amendment in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is also against the fundamental rights conferred on female under the Constitution of India. They have also contended that both the Amendments are ultra vires, unconstitutional and void. The Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 came into force on 25.03.1989. Hence, the plaintiff and the 7th defendant do not have a right by birth and are not entitled to claim as per the Hindu Succession Act as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990. The Amendment Act 39 of 2005 came into force on 09.09.2005 and as per Section 6 (5) of the Amendment Act, nothing contained in that section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before 20.12.2004 and the explanation makes it clear that the said partition should either be a registered Deed or a partition effected by a Decree of the Court.
17.In the case on hand, the partition was effected between the defendants 1, 3 & 4 under a registered Partition Deed dated 14.06.1993 registered as Document No.1385 of 1993 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sankarapuram. The plaintiff and the 7th defendant have not spoken anything about the registered Partition Deed dated 14.06.1993. In spite of the fact that the defendants 1, 3 & 4 have specifically pleaded that there was a partition between themselves on 14.06.1993, the said averment was not disputed by the plaintiff and the 7th defendant in their counter. The plaintiff has suppressed the registered Partition Deed and has filed the suit for partition attacking the vires of the Amendment Act 39 of 2005 and Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 1990. When the provisions of Section 6 (5) of the Hindu Succession Act (Amended Act 39 of 2005) is very clear that nothing contained in the Section shall apply to partition, which had been effected before 20.12.2004, in view of the registered Partition Deed dated 14.06.1993 executed between the defendants 1, 3 & 4, the plaintiff and the 7th defendant cannot claim a share in the properties.
18.The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare the Amendment Acts are unconstitutional, ultra vires and void ab initio. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 268 cited supra, held that for questions relating to the validity of central or other laws, the appropriate forum is the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition and not an original suit filed under Article 131 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in Supreme Court as regards the disputes enumerated therein.
19.The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that in view of the provisions of Order XXVII-A of the Civil Procedure Code, a Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare the Amendment Act (i.e.) Act 39 of 2005 and Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 1990 as ultra vires and unconstitutional, cannot stand, for the reason that the said provision relates to suits involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or as to the validity of any statutory instrument. However, the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that since under the provisions of Order XXVII A, the validity of any statutory instrument can also be decided by Civil Court, the Principal District Court, Villupuram has got jurisdiction to declare the Amended Acts as ultra vires and unconstitutional.
20.However, in the explanation to the provisions of Order XXVII-A, it has been stated that statutory instrument means a rule, notification, bye-law, order, scheme or form made as specified under any enactment. In the explanation, the Act or Amendment Act has not been included. From the explanation to the provisions of Order XXVII-A, it is clear that only the validity of rule, notification, bye-law, order, scheme or form made as specified under any enactment can be questioned before a Civil Court.
21.Since the Act and Amendment Act are not included in the explanation to the provisions, I am of the considered view that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the Act or Amended Act as ultra vires, unconstitutional and void. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The facts of the case relied upon in 2014 (2) CTC 113 completely differs from the case on hand, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent is not applicable to the present case. Since the Principal District Court, Villupuram has no jurisdiction to declare Section 29A of Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 1990 and Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act Amendment Act 39 of 2005 as unconstitutional and ultra vires, the trial Court should have allowed the application and struck off the plaint from the file. Unless the provisions of Section 29A and Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act are struck down as ultra vires and unconstitutional, the plaintiff and 7th defendant cannot claim a share in the properties.
22.The suit filed by the plaintiff is against the provisions of Section 29A and Section 6 of the Amended Acts. If the suit is allowed to continue, it will cause prejudice and embarrassment to the contesting defendants and the filing of the suit is clear abuse of process of the Court, apart from vexatious.
23.In these circumstances, the fair and decreetal order passed by the Principal District Court, Villupuram in I.A.No.463 of 2011 in O.S.No.97 of 2011 are set aside. The application in I.A.No.463 of 2011 stands allowed. Consequently, the plaint filed in O.S.No.97 of 2011 is struck off. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes 24.06.2015 Internet : Yes va To The Principal District Court, Villupuram. M.DURAISWAMY,J. va Order made in C.R.P.(PD).No.2096 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 24.06.2015