Karnataka High Court
Sri R Venkatappa vs Sri Ramaiah on 31 March, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
R.F.A. NO.223 OF 2007 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI R VENKATAPPA
ALIAS VENKAT RAJU
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT BYCHAPURA KASBA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.RAM MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RAMAIAH
S/O DANAGALA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
2. MUNIYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
A) SMT. ASHWATHAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
B) PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
2
C) SMT. SHOBHA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
D) SMT. POORNIMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
E) KUM PAVITHRA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
F) MASTER PRAVEEN
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
THE LRs 2(E) AND (F) ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.ASHWATHAMMA,
45 YEARS, W/O MUNIYAPPA
3. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. SMT. PUSHPA
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
5. RAJANNA
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT BYCHAPPURA KASBA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110
6. SMT. JABEEN TAJU
D/O SYED MUSTHAPHA
R/AT NEAR NEW BUS STAND ROAD,
4TH DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
3
DEVANAHALLI-562110
7. KHUDDUS PASHA
S/O MOHAMMED YUSUF
AGED 36 YERAS,
R/O 4TH DIVISION, JALAPATHI ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI-562110
8. SRI.B.K.RAMESH
S/O V.KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1098-A, SRI.NILAYAM, 7TH MAIN,
K.E.B LAYOUT, B.T.M 1ST STAGE,
BANGALORE-560029.
9. SRI.JAGADIS VAJRAMUNI,
S/O LATE B.VAJRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35, VAJRAGIRI NURSERY,
ANJANPURA, BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE-560062.
10. SRI.N.RAVI KUMAR
S/O N.RAMALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.46, III FLOOR, C.C.VILAS,
EJIPURA MAIN ROAD, KORAMANGALA,
VIVEKANAGAR POST, BANGALORE.
11. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE M.PAPANNA AND
D/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT RAMPURA, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560049.
12. R.RATHNAMMA
W/O S.C.MUNIRAMAIAH AND
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
4
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT DEVANAHALLI TOWN, MARALUBAGILU-560110
BENGALURU RURAL DIST.
(IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED:21.03.2022)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICATION; SRI.R GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A-F);
SRI.K.SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R5;
SRI.M.C.RAMACHANRA, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI.HARISH.H.V, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & R9;
SRI.BEAULA, ADVOCATE FOR R10; R6 SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
AND DECREE DT.28.10.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.1741/2006 ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC., DEVANAHALLI,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, DECLARATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCITON.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 21.03.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned Regular First Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1741/2006, wherein Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of partition and separate possession.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Court below. 5
3. The relevant genealogy of the family is as under:
RAMAIAH(75) Munichennamma(70) Muniyappa Krishnappa Rajanna Venkataraju Jayamma (50) (Dead) (35) (30) 5th Defendant Smt.Narayanamma(30) Rathnamma(30) 3rd Defendant Pushpha(17) 4th Defendant
4. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiff is the fourth son of Ramaiah. The subject matter of the suit schedule property are two agricultural lands.
Item No.1 is Sy.No.25 measuring 2 acres which is standing in the name of defendant No.1 who is the father of plaintiff.
Item No.2 was granted to defendant No.2 Muniyappa who is the eldest son. The plaintiff has filed the present suit by contending that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties and they are in joint possession and 6 enjoyment and therefore, plaintiff claims that he is in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties.
The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that item No.2 is a government land and family was cultivating the said property and the members of the joint family were cultivating item No.2 since several years. The plaintiff claims that defendant No.2 being the Kartha of the joint family gave a representation to the Deputy Commissioner to grant item No.2 and Deputy Commissioner on enquiry has granted item No.2 by order dated 19.04.1979 and the Tahsildar has issued a grant certificate pursuant to grant order.
5. The plaintiff has further pleaded that defendant No.2 is acting adverse to the interest of the family members and under the ill advice of defendant No.7, allowed the defendant No.7 to interfere with item No.2 property. It is only then, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.2 is asserting right on the basis of alleged registered GPA in respect of item No.2. Therefore, plaintiff was compelled to 7 approach his father i.e., defendant No.1 and expressed that he cannot continue in joint possession as defendant No.2 was unable to manage the family property and therefore, sought his legitimate share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further contended that at the intervention of village elders, the same was communicated to defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiff claims that inspite of advice by the village elders, defendant No.2 did not give heed to the advice and refused to allot legitimate share to the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff claims that he was compelled to file the present suit for partition and separate possession.
6. The defendant Nos.6 and 7, on receipt of summons, contested the proceedings by filing separate written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendant Nos.6 and 7 admitted that defendant No.7 has sold item No.2 to defendant No.6. The defendant Nos.6 and 7 specifically contended that defendant No.6 has purchased item No.2 for valuable sale consideration under registered sale 8 deed dated 04.02.1995. The defendant No.6 also contended that pursuant to registered sale deed, the name of defendant No.6 is duly mutated to revenue records. At paragraph 9 of the written statement, defendant Nos.6 and 7 specifically averred that this suit is filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant Nos.1 to 5 only to cause wrongful loss to the defendants. It was also specifically averred that there is no cause of action to file the present suit and one alleged is false and concocted.
7. Based on rival contentions, the Trial Court formulated the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and he is entitled share in the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the item No.2 of the property granted in favour of the 2nd defendant for the benefit of entire joint family and he is entitled share in the suit schedule properties?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the sale deed executed by 7th defendant in favour of 6th defendant is void sale deed that is not binding on 9 them for the reasons stated in the paras 8 and 9 of the plaint?
4. Whether the 7th defendant proves that the sale deed executed by him in respect of item No.2 is the self acquired property, the plaintiff is no right over the partition in this property?
5. What order or decree?"
8. The plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW.1 and one independent witness as PW.2 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-4. The defendants by way of rebuttal evidence examined one witness as DW.1 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.D-1 to D-4.
9. The Trial Court having assessed oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and recorded a categorical finding that plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties. The Trial Court also recorded a categorical finding that plaintiff has failed to prove that item 10 No.2 property was granted in favour of defendant No.2 and that would enure for the benefit of the entire family. While answering issue No.3, Trial Court has also recorded a categorical finding that plaintiff has failed to prove that the sale deed executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.6 is void and that it is not binding on plaintiff's share. While examining issue No.4, Trial Court has meticulously examined the clinching evidence on record and has come to conclusion that the grant made by the authorities in favour of defendant No.2 was in his individual capacity and therefore, item No.2 is self acquired property of defendant No.2. On these set of reasonings, the Trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the suit.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Court below, the unsuccessful plaintiff is before this Court.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would vehemently argue and contend before 11 this Court that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court suffers from serious infirmities. Taking through the order sheet of the Trial Court, he would submit to this Court that the Trial Court without affording any opportunity and in gross violation of principles of natural justice has hurriedly dismissed the suit and therefore, he would submit to this Court that the impugned judgment and decree is not at all sustainable. He would further contend that the Trial Court erred in denying an opportunity of cross-examining defendant No.7 who was examined as DW.1. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo, he would further contend that the present respondent Nos.8 and 9 who have purchased the item No.2 from respondent No.10 is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He would submit to this Court that respondent Nos.8 and 9 have purchased during the pendency of the suit and therefore, he would contend that respondent Nos.8 and 9 would not acquire any right and title in the suit schedule property.
12
12. When this Court posed a query as to how the present suit is maintainable as the family owned several properties, he would contend that the suit is maintainable as properties are acquired by family members subsequent to filing of suit and therefore, registered partition deed which is produced along with I.A. will not take away the rights of the plaintiff in seeking partition in the suit schedule property.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicants who are the daughters of Ramaiah arguing in the same vein would contend that the daughters are also necessary parties and therefore, he would submit to this Court that they are entitled to come on record as they have legitimate share in the suit schedule property.
14. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.8 and 9 repelling the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and impleading applicants would submit to this Court that the present suit is a collusive suit. 13 Placing reliance on the registered partition deed dated 21.10.2009 which is produced before this Court by way of additional evidence, he would submit to this Court that the apprehension of defendant Nos.6 and 7 and respondent Nos.8 and 9, who are the subsequent purchasers, that the suit filed by the plaintiff is a collusive suit further stands strengthened in view of registered partition deed dated 21.10.2009. Placing reliance on the additional evidence, he would submit to this Court that the plaintiff has admitted in unequivocal terms in ocular evidence that the present suit is filed only at the advice of defendant No.2 and therefore, he would submit to this Court that having suffered dismissal of decree by judgment and decree dated 28.10.2006, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 have effected partition under registered partition deed dated 21.10.2009. He would also place reliance on the registered release deed dated 05.04.2007 executed by the widow and children of their vendor i.e., defendant No.2. 14
15. To buttress his arguments, he would place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Barnwal vs. Ram Lakhan (Dead)1. Placing reliance on paragraph 11 of the judgment, he would submit to this Court that this Court has power to take note of subsequent events, more particularly registered partition deed and if there is already severance in the family on the basis of registered partition deed, the present suit for partition is not at all maintainable. Therefore, to promote substantial justice to the subsequent transferees, he would request this Court to take judicial note of the registered partition deed effected between the family of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 subsequent to dismissal of the suit in the year 2006.
16. Learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hukum Chandra (Dead) through Legal representatives vs. Nemi 1 (2007) 5 SCC 660 15 Chand Jain and Others2. Placing reliance on these two judgments, he would submit to this Court that the present suit for partition was only an afterthought and the said suit was filed at the instance of defendant No.2 who having sold the suit schedule property for valuable sale consideration through a registered GPA has instigated his brother to file the present suit and this fact is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 who has admitted in unequivocal terms that at the advice of defendant No.2, the present suit is filed. On these set of grounds, he would submit to this Court that the appeal is liable to be dismissed by imposing exemplary costs as plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 who are beneficiaries under registered partition deed have suppressed the same and they have not brought to the notice of this Court that registered partition deed is of the year 2009.
17. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned counsel for the 2 (2019) 13 SCC 363 16 impleading applicants. Perused the records. The following points would arise for consideration:
1) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that item No.2 is self acquired property of defendant No.2 is erroneous and therefore, warrants interference at the hands of this Court?
2) Whether respondent Nos.8 and 9 are entitled to rely on additional documents i.e., registered partition deed and release deed in the interest of justice?
Re: Point No.1:
18. On meticulous examination of material on record, this Court would find that there is no serious dispute insofar as item No.1 bearing Sy.No.25 measuring 2 acres is concerned. Admittedly, item No.1 was standing in the name of original defendant No.1 i.e., father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to
5. The contest is only in respect of item No.2. Defendant No.6 who claims to be the purchaser of item No.2 has specifically claimed that item No.2 is self acquired property of defendant 17 No.2 and therefore, has alleged that the present suit is a collusive suit and the same is filed at the instance of defendant No.2. On perusal of Ex.P-1, it is clearly evident that name of defendant No.2 finds place in the name of grantees. The grant admittedly is made for an upset price of Rs.500/- and the grant order does not indicate that it is made on behalf of defendant No.2's family.
19. When a grant is made under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, admittedly the family of grantee do not have any pre-existing rights as in the case of permanent tenant, protected tenant or a deemed tenant. It is the discretion of the authority to grant the land after due enquiry in terms of Rule 12(4) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Except this document, the plaintiff has not at all produced any document to indicate that item No.2 was granted on behalf of the family and not in the individual capacity of defendant No.2. The concept of enuring for the benefit of family members cannot be extended in respect of 18 lands which are granted by the authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the grant made in favour of defendant No.2 would enure for the benefit of the joint family members cannot be acceded to.
20. The record of rights produced at Exs.P-2 and P-3 by the plaintiff would go against the claim made by the plaintiff. On perusal of the record of rights, this Court would find that item No.2 was exclusively standing in the name of defendant No.2 and even in the cultivators column, it was only name of defendant No.2 which was exclusively appearing before sale by the GPA holder/defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.6. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that the land granted in favour of defendant No.2 was put in common hotchpotch and therefore, on account of blending of item No.2, it was also treated as joint family property. Therefore, it is in this background, this Court is of the view that plaintiff has failed to prove that the grant made in favour of defendant 19 No.2 pertaining to item No.2 would enure for the benefit of the plaintiff and other defendants. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
Re: Point No.2:
21. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking partition in two items as narrated in the preceding paragraphs. The defendant No.6 who is the transferee has specifically alleged in the written statement that the present suit is a collusive suit and the same is filed at the instigation of the defendant No.2. Defendant No.6 claims that defendant No.2 have sold item No.2 and has instigated his brother i.e., plaintiff herein to file the present suit. This fact is elicited in cross-examination. Therefore, it would be relevant for this Court to cull out the relevant portion in the cross-examination of PW.1 which reads as under:
"2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ zÁªÁ LlA 2£ÀÄß 7£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ°èAzÉà PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DzÀgÉ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¥ÉÆõÀuÉUÉ JAzÀÄ 7£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß D §UÉÎ PÉýzÁUÀ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £À£ÀUÉ 20 7£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ ºÀt ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝãÉ. d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁgÁlPÉÌ PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ zÁªÁ LlA 2 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁlªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ (PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ). DUÀ £À£Àß CtÚ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÉøÀÄ ºÁPÉÆÃt JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ."
22. If this relevant portion is looked into, this Court would find that defendant No.2 advised the plaintiff to file the suit and at the advice of defendant No.2, the present suit is filed. The plaintiff and other defendants have not disclosed the family holdings and defendant Nos.6 and 7 and the present respondent Nos.8 and 9 who are the transferees cannot be expected to have the full details of family holdings. However, the plaintiff and other defendants having suffered a dismissal decree however, have effected partition by metes and bounds under registered partition deed dated 21.10.2009. Now on perusal of the registered partition deed which is produced by way of additional evidence, it would clearly demonstrate that the present suit is filed with oblique motive and it is a collusive suit filed at the instance of the defendant No.2. On perusal of the registered partition deed, this Court 21 would find that the plaintiff and defendants are party to the registered partition deed. The legal representatives of defendant No.6 vendor i.e., defendant No.2 have executed a release deed in favour of defendant No.1 Ramaiah under registered release deed dated 05.04.2007. On perusal of the registered partition deed, this Court would find that the family owned several properties which are referred as ABCDE and F under separate six schedules. Even item No.1 bearing Sy.No.25 is also partitioned under registered partition deed. The same clearly reveals that family of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 owned other agricultural lands namely Sy.Nos.62/1, 62/2, 81/1, 81/2 and 82/3. Therefore, I am of the view that the additional evidence produced by the respondent Nos.8 and 9 would clearly establish that the plaintiff has deliberately filed the suit in respect of alienated property in favour of defendant No.2.
23. On meticulous examination of the plaint, this Court would find that there is no serious dispute insofar as item No.1 22 bearing Sy.No.25 is concerned. Therefore, only to negate the sale deed executed by the defendant No.2's GPA i.e., defendant No.7 in favour of the defendant No.6 under registered sale deed for valuable consideration, the present suit came to be filed. While answering point No.1, this Court has recorded a categorical finding that item No.2 is self acquired property of defendant No.2. The fact that family of plaintiff have resolved to effect partition by metes and bounds under registered partition deed dated 21.10.2009 would clearly show that the present suit for partial partition is not at all maintainable. The copy of registered partition deed was brought to the notice of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff who pleaded ignorance on the previous date i.e., 10.03.2022. Even today, when a question was posed to learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, he submitted that he tried to seek instructions from the plaintiff. However, he made a statement that he is not aware of the registered partition deed. At the same juncture, he would submit to this 23 Court that the properties reflected in the registered partition deed are acquired subsequent to filing of the partition suit and therefore, same would not affect the rights of the plaintiff insofar as item No.2 property is concerned.
24. If this subsequent registered partition deed in the family of the plaintiff is examined in the context of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied by learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9, then this Court is of the view that the present suit is a collusive suit and this allegation has further strengthened by the assertions and allegations made by the transferees which is promptly brought to the notice of this Court. The registered partition deed would invariably have a fundamental impact on the alleged claim made by the plaintiff in respect of item No.2 property. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken judicial note of the Full Bench judgment of Nagpur High Court rendered in the case of Chhote Khan vs. Mohd. Obedalla Khan3. 3 AIR 1953 Nag 361 24
25. The subsequent events in exceptional cases can be taken note of more particularly by the Appellate Court. If the registered partition deed is taken note of, then the claim of plaintiff has to be rejected on two counts. If really item No.2 was joint family ancestral property, nothing prevented the plaintiff and other defendants from including item No.2 in the 2009 partition. Though learned counsel appearing for plaintiff has made a feeble attempt in offering explanation that since lis is pending before this Court, item No.2 was not included. Though this assumption may appear to be impressive at the first instance, however, the said argument cannot be acceded to as plaintiff has conveniently included item No.1 in the said partition deed. Therefore, what can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances is that plaintiff and other defendants have admitted in unequivocal terms that item No.2 was not joint family ancestral property. Non-inclusion of item No.2 in the partition deed would clearly draw an inference against plaintiff that it was self acquired property of defendant 25 No.2 and therefore, only item No.1 is the subject matter of the partition deed with other ancestral properties and item No.2 is rightly left out. If all these significant details are taken into consideration, then I am of the view that the present appeal does not survive for consideration and the fact that family owned several other properties would also indicate that the present suit filed for partial partition is not at all maintainable.
26. It is more than trite that where all properties are not included, the Court has to fix a date calling upon the plaintiff to include all the properties. In the present case on hand, such a recourse is also not available as plaintiff along with family members have already effected partition under registered partition deed and therefore there is severance. Therefore, the present suit only in respect of alienated property is also not maintainable. It is in this background, this Court to do substantial justice and put an end to a frivolous litigation would proceed to hold that suit for partial partition is not maintainable. In view of subsequent events, more 26 particularly severance in the family of plaintiff on the basis of registered partition deed, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
27. In the light of the discussions made supra, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmities or illegalities. There is proper appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court is based on rebuttal evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
28. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA