Allahabad High Court
Badri And Ors. vs Jata Shankar And Another on 3 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 ALLAHABAD 54, AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 163
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Court No. - 7/Reserved Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 162 of 2011 Appellant :- Badri And Ors. Respondent :- Jata Shankar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- R.R.Upadhyay,Amit Srivastava,Indra P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.K.Mehrotra,Aditya Mishra,Aditya Nath,I.D.Shukla,Shobh Nath Pandey,Vipin Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. Heard, Shri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No.87 of 2008;Jata Shankar and another Versus Badri and others, which was preferred by the defendants/respondents for setting aside the judgment and order dated 29.07.2008, passed by the 3rd Civil Judge (JD), Faizabad in Regular Suit No.248 of 1989;Bhagwan Das and others Versus Smt.Raji and another.
3. The brief facts of the case for adjudication of the present Second Appeal are that both the appellants/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants are the residents of the same village and they were the members of Hindu joint family. Jorai was the owner of the whole property in dispute. After death of Jorai it came in the name of Mahangi, the eldest son of Jorai. After the death of Mahangi it was mutated in the name of Jagesar. Mahangi, Dubar, Lahuri and Rohni took over their possession according to their shares. Lahuri died issueless, therefore, his share was divided among all the brothers. Smt. Raji had equal share in whole property. Jagesar had entrusted his whole property in his life time to Ram Sumer, Chhedo, Bhagwan Dass and Ram Lal, but they had no right to sell the property. It was ordered by Jagesar that they will serve Smt. Raji. She was also issueless. As such they were the heirs of her property, but they had not got their names recorded in the revenue records. Smt.Raji was remarried and after her marriage they had become the owner of her property. Any how she wanted to grab the property of deceased Jagesar and transfer the house and agricultural land to others. After death of Smt.Raji her servant Bhagauti claimed himself to be heir through her Will. While she had never executed any Will and Bhagauti had no possession and right over the land in dispute.
4. The defendants had filed their written statement alleging that Smt. Raji was the owner of the disputed property. She had written Will dated 21/23.01.1980 of her whole property in the name of the defendants. After her death they became owner and bhumidhar of the disputed land. Plaintiffs had never served Smt. Raji while the defendants had served her. There was no relation of wife and husband between the defendants. Plaintiffs are not the heirs of Smt.Raji and the suit had been filed only to grab her property. The suit is not within time and it has been filed only to harass the defendants. Bhgauti had filed additional written statement alleging therein that Smt. Raji was not remarried. Smt. Raji is the nearest relative of the defendants. The defendants are in possession over the land in dispute from the life time of Smt. Raji and they became owner on the basis of Will dated 21/23.01.1980.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession over the disputed land?
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in absence of possession?
3. Whether the suit is time barred?
4.Whether the suit is undervalued and the court fee paid is insufficient?
5. Whether the defendants are entitled to get special cost from plaintiffs under section 35 C.P.C.?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief?
7. Whether Smt. Raji was remarried with Bhagauti?
6. The plaintiff in addition to documentary evidence had examined P.W.1 Bahaoo and P.W.2 Chingo. The defendants had examined D.W.1 Jata Shankar, D.W.2 Ram Lala and D.W. 3 Prabhu Dei and also filed affidavit of Ram Achal.
7. Learned Trial Court had partly allowed the suit of the plaintiffs after considering the arguments of both the parties and the entire evidence on record by means of the judgment and order dated 29.07.2008. Aggrieved with the same the defendants had filed civil appeal no.87 of 2008(Jata Shankar and another Versus Badri and others), which has been allowed by means of judgment and order dated 05.03.2011 and the judgment and order dated 29.07.2008 has been set aside and the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed. Being aggrieved with the same the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the present Second Appeal.
8. The present Second Appeal was admitted by means of the order dated 29.04.2011 on substantial question of law framed at Sl.No.1. Subsequently on an application moved by the appellants another substantial question of law was formulated by means of order dated 11.12.2017. Accordingly two substantial questions of law are involved for adjudication, which are reproduced as under:-
1. Whether the trial court having recorded a finding that the property in dispute is ancestral and the plaintiffs/appellants are in possession over their share, has the lower appellate court erred in law in setting aside the findings of the trial court without any evidence on record?
2. Whether the lower appellate court has failed to make compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and has not formulated points of determination while deciding the appeal and whether it would result to non-sustainability of impugned judgment in the eyes of law?
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against Smt.Raji on 25.05.1989 and Smt. Raji had died on 13.06.1989. Smt. Raji was wife of Jagesar. Smt. Raji had died issueless. Bhagauti Kewat had filed an impleadment application on the basis of a photocopy of registered Will dated 21/23.01.1980 in his favour executed by Smt. Raji, but the original Will was not filed before the trial court. The suit was decreed exparte in the year 1990. The exparte decree was recalled and set aside in the year 1998. Smt. Raji had remarried to Bhagauti Kewat, which is apparent from the family register of house no.23 and also the electoral roll, in which he has been shown as her husband, but the same has wrongly not been accepted on the ground that it is not proved that there was 'saptpadi' in the marriage and mere entry in family register and electoral roll is not sufficient to prove the relationship or remarriage while the 'Dharaua' marriage being customary was proved. The original Will was neither filed nor proved before the trial court. Bhagauti Kewat had transferred the land in dispute to Bhagwati Prasad and Jata Shankar through registered Will dated 16.07.2003. Accordingly they were impleaded in the suit. Since the original Will dated 21/23.01.1980 was not filed, therefore, the chain of transfer was not complete. Therefore the suit was decreed in regard to the land under U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act. In the appellate court the certified copy of the Will was filed but the same was not proved in accordance with the Evidence Act therefore the same could not have been relied.
10. It has further been contended that the learned trial court has recorded a categorical finding that the name of Bhagauti was recorded in the revenue records by fraud, but without rebutting the said finding the Will has been accepted without being proof in accordance with the Evidence Act, which could not have been done by the learned appellate court.
11. He further submitted that an application for amendment in the written statement was moved by the respondents/defendants in the appellate court to take the plea of suit being barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The said application was rejected by means of the order dated 08.05.2009, but the learned appellate court has allowed the appeal on the ground of bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H.Act without framing any point of determination on it. In case if the learned appellate court was of the view that it is the legal plea which could have been raised at any stage the matter should have been remitted back to the learned trial court to decide it after affording opportunity to the appellants/plaintiffs.
12. On the basis of above learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower appellate court has erred in law in deciding the appeal without formulating the point of determination therefore it is in violation of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and also setting aside the findings of the trial court on the basis of the Will filed at the appellate stage, which was not proved and no opportunity has been afforded to the appellants to rebut the same. Therefore the judgment and order passed by the learned appellate court is liable to be set aside.
13. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellants has relied on Jagdish Versus Rajendr;AIR 1975 Allahabad 395, K.Laxmanan Versus Thekkayil Padmini and others;2009 (27) LCD 1344, Kanchan Kumar Chaudhary Versus District Judge, Mau and others;RD 1998 (89) 610, Ratti Pal Versus Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Pratapgarh and others;2014 (124) RD 195, Hori Lal Versus Babu Ram and others;2005 All.C.J. 2158, Shri Ram and others Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others;2011 (29) LCD 764, Kanailal and others Versus Ram Chandra Singh and others;(2018) 13 SCC 715, Meenakshiammal (dead) Through LRs and others versus Chandrasekaran and Another; 2006 (24) LCD 1316 and Anathula Sudhakar Versus P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs. and others;(2008) 4 SCC 594.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellants/plaintiffs had filed the injunction suit but they have failed to prove their title and possession over the land in dispute. The learned Trial Court had decreed the suit partly only in regard to the land covered under the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, but no relief was granted in regard to the land of abadi and no appeal was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the said part of the judgment and the same was accepted. The name of late Smt. Raji was recorded in the first consolidation of 1962 and thereafter again in the 2nd consolidation which took place in 1980. Both consolidations took place in the life time of Smt. Raji, but no objection was raised or claim was made by the plaintiffs-appellants during her life time and it was only just before her death the suit for permanent injunction was filed.
15. The land in dispute was transferred in the name of respondents-defendants on the basis of a registered Will executed by Smt.Raji in favour of Bhagauti Kewat and thereafter the registered Will executed by Bhagauti Kewat in favour of the respondents-defendants. The Wills were never challenged by the appellants-plaintiffs and the names of respondent/defendants was mutated in accordance with law on the basis of Will. Therefore, they are not entitled for any relief. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was not maintainable and the first appellate court has rightly held that the suit is barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
16. Lastly he submitted that the appellants-plaintiffs and the respondents-defendants were already separated and had separate 'Pariwar' Register, which were filed before the learned trial court. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim the land devolved on late Smt.Raji, which has come in the name of the respondents-defendants on the basis of registered Will.
17. On the basis of above learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned trial court had wrongly and illegally partly allowed the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs which has rightly been set aside and the suit for permanent injunction of the appellants-plaintiffs has rightly been dismissed. The present appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds which is liable to be dismissed with costs.
18. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the respondents has relied on Dina Nath Verma and others Versus Gokaran and others;2003 (94) RD 323 and Prabhu Dayal Versus Gaon Samaj, Tandarpore;1965 ALJ 426.
19. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels of the parties and perused the record.
20. The facts which are not in dispute are that Jorai was the owner of the whole property in dispute. After his death it came in the name of Mahangi, Dubar, Lahuri and Rohini. They took over their possession according to their share. Lahuri died issueless, therefore his share was divided among all the brothers. Thereafter the property in dispute came in the name of Jagesar. Smt. Raji being wife of Jagesar had equal share in whole property after his death. Jagesar had entrusted his property to Ram Sumer, Chhedi, Bhagwan Dass and Ram Lal, but they had no right to sell the property as it was provided by Jagesar that they will look after Smt. Raji as she was issueless.
21. The appellant/plaintiffs had filed Suit for permanent injunction alleging therein that Smt. Raji had re-married after the death of Jagesar. Therefore they had become the owner of her property in view of Section 172 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act. The Suit was filed during life time of Smt. Raji on 25.05.1989 and Smt. Raji died on 13.06.1989 without filing written statement. Bhagauti had got himself impleaded on the basis of a registered Will deed in his favour executed by Smt.Raji on 21/23.01.1980. The plea of the appellants/plaintiffs is that Smt. Raji had re-married with Bhagauti, therefore, the property was reverted to the family of Jagesar and the appellants had become owner and in possession of the property in dispute.
22. Learned Trial court on the basis of evidence and findings recorded in regard to issues no.1 and 7 came to the conclusion that the appellants have not produced any Khasra by which the possession of the plaintiffs could be proved, but since Smt. Raji had re-married and the plaintiffs are owner and in possession under the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act, therefore, the said issues are decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
23. Learned Appellate court while considering the findings recorded in regard to the issues no.1 and 7 and the evidence found that P.W.1 has stated that Smt.Raji had done 'Dharauwa' marriage with Bhagauti and at the time of marriage he was 25 years of age. P.W.2 Ram Achal has also stated that Smt.Raji had done 'Dharauwa' marriage with Bhagauti and he was 10 to 20 years old. They live like husband and wife. The marriage of Bhagauti and Smt. Raji took place according to 'Hindu' customs. About 50 members were gathered. Pandit Ji had not come. The marriage was done by 'Biradari'. D.W.1-Jata Shanker, D.W.2-Rampal and D.W.3-Prabhu Dei have denied any 'Dharauwa' marriage between Smt. Raji and Bhagauti or any relation of husband and wife between them. Though it was stated by D.W.2 that Bhagauti was living in the house of Smt.Raji. As per the pleadings and evidence Smt. Raji re-married with Bhagauti prior to 36 years ago and due to re-marriage she lost her title as stated in the plaint. While Jagesar had died in 1959. Therefore, on the basis of versions of the witnesses, the learned appellate court found that Smt. Raji should have married in 1953, which is self contradictory because it is not the case of the plaintiffs that Smt.Raji married in the life time of Jagesar. While in view of above Smt. Raji should have married during life time of Jagesar.
24. In paragraph 8 of the plaint it has been mentioned that after the death of Smt. Raji the said servant Bhagauti showed himself as the legal heir of Smt.Raji on the basis of Will executed by her. Smt. Raji had not executed any Will deed. Therefore, there is an admission by the appellant/plaintiffs that Bhaguati was the servant of Smt. Raji. 'Dharauwa' marriage deposed by the P.W.1 and P.W.2 has not been pleaded in the plaint. It is not proved by the evidence on record that there was 'Saptpadi' in the marriage of Smt. Raji and Bhagauti. 'Dharauwa' marriage has been deposed as a custom in the family but the plaintiffs have even not proved that there was any such custom in the family. The statement of witnesses in absence of pleading is nothing but stray statement which is not binding as held by this court in Ambika Prasad and another Versus Sri Harihar Prasad;1985 (3) LCD 266.
25. In the Will deed dated 21/23.01.1980 filed as Paper No.152 C/2 to 5, Smt. Raji widow of Jagesar and Bhagauti as 'Mausiyat Dewar' has been mentioned. It is also mentioned that he was living with her for the last 18-20 years and serving her and managing her farming etc. It is also apparent from Paper No.152C/19, the order passed on mutation case, that the name of Bhagauti was recorded on the basis of Will, after proving in accordance with law.
26. In absence of 'Saptpadi' and without plea of customary marriage as 'Dharauwa' and without proof of existence of any such custom, merely on the basis of statement of witnesses of plaintiffs and living of Bhagauti with Smt. Raji to serve her and manage her farming cannot be treated as re-marriage in absence of any cogent evidence and the rights of Smt. Raji, a widow, would not be extinguished under Section 172 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. The findings recorded by the learned trial court that Smt. Raji had re-married with Bhgauti is without any cogent evidence and the learned appellate court has rightly recorded that it is not proved by the cogent, reliable and corroborative evidence and the finding of the trial court is not based on the evidence on record.
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santi Deb Berma Versus Kanchan Prava Devi; 1991 Supp (2) SCC 616 held that living together as husband and wife cannot in any way serve as proof of a valid marriage as per the Act, especially when there is no plea that the marriage was solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and usage, which do not include 'Saptpadi'.
28. This Court in the case of Dina Nath Verma and others Versus Gokaran and others;2003(94) RD 323 does not find "Ghar Baitha" as legal marriage and held that since no objection was raised in consolidation proceedings therefore the allegations are only an after thought and the allegation of re-marriage can not be accepted. The relevant paragraphs 11 to 13 are extracted below:-
"11. Now coming to the other questions firstly, I consider whether Smt. Lakhraji re-married to Phagoo. Oral evidence has been produced regarding re-marriage. However, the same does not appear to convincting. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the marriage took place. On the other hand, only to is alleged that it was "Ghar Baitha"; that sagai took place and thereafter Smt. Lakhraji and Phagoo started living as husband and wife. It does not show that it was a legal marriage. It is not alleged in the plaint that "sapta-pati" took place and therefore, this marriage cannot be recognised and Smt. Lakhraji cannot be divested from the property.
12. In the present case, it is admitted position that the name of Smt. Lakhraji was recorded over the land on which dispute houses exist in CH Form No. 23. Smt. Lakhraji was declared as exclusive owner of the land and chack was carved out in her name. Smt. Yashoda Devi and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not raised any objection in the consolidation proceedings. They have not stated that Smt. Lakhraji has been divested from the land because she had re-married with Phagoo. Therefore, the allegations made in the suit is only a after thought and the allegation that Smt. Lakhraji has re-married cannot be accepted.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh [ A.I.R. 1994 SCC 135.] , has held that where customary marriage is pleaded but the custom is not pleaded and there is no evidence of the nature of the ceremonies performed in marriage in such a case from the evidence that the parties were living together as husband and wife does not itself show that it would confer status of husband and wife."
29. The judgment passed in the case of Hori Lal Versus Babu Ram and others;2005 All.C.J.2158, Shri Ram and others versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others;2011 (29) LCD 764 are of no assistance to the case of the appellants.
30. This Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Versus Gaon Samaj Tandarpore ;1965 ALJ 426 has held that in a Suit for injunction the plaintiff's right to an injunction is based upon some title which he must establish to the satisfaction of the Court. But the appellant/plaintiffs have failed to establish.
31. This Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar Chaudhary Versus District Judge, Mau and others;1998 (89) RD 610 has held that in a suit for permanent injunction the question of title arises only incidentally. Similar view has been taken by this court in the case of Ratti Pal Versus Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Pratapgarh and others;2014(124) RD 195.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Versus P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs. and others;(2008) 4 SCC 594 has referred the general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief. The relevant paragraph 13 is extracted below:-
"13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly.
13.1. Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
13.2. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction."
33. So far as the proof of Will deed executed by Smt. Raji is concerned the same was acted upon after proving before the Tehsildar. It is also apparent from report of Police Station 172c and Paper No.162c/7 Khasra, 162c/8 Khatauni etc. that the disputed land was in possession of Jagesar-Smt.Raji-Bhagauti-Jata Shanker-Bhagwati. The disputed house is locked. Therefore the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Jagdish Versus Rajendr;AIR 1975 Allahabad 395, Meenakshiammal (dead) through LRs and others Versus Chandrasekaran and another; 2006 (24) LCD 1316 and K. Laxmanan Versus Thekkayil Padmini and others; 2009 (27) LCD 1344 are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and of no assistance to the case of the appellants.
34. In view of above this court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Trial court in regard to reversion of the land in dispute and possession of the appellants on account of alleged re-marriage of Smt. Raji was perverse and not tenable because no Khasra was also filed showing the possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the learned appellate court has rightly set aside the findings of the trial court in regard to possession. This court does not find any illegality or error in it.
35. Learned Appellate court after examining the evidence found that house No.23, Gata No.190-A area 0-0-17, 190-B area 1-2-2, 309 area 3-6-12 and 161 Ka area 0-8-5 given in the bottom of the plaint were recorded in the name of Smt. Raji in the first consolidation and continued in the second consolidation and respondents had not made any objection before the consolidation authorities. However, the matter regarding adjudication of title is pending before the consolidation authorities and thus the suit of plaintiffs was also barred by Section 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. Even otherwise the plaintiff/appellants have failed to prove their case as discussed above. In view of no objection raised by the appellant/plaintiffs in both the consolidations during the life time of Smt.Raji, their allegations are only after thought and could not be proved by cogent and reliable evidence, therefore not acceptable in view of judgment in the case of Dina Nath Verma and others Versus Gokaran and others (Supra) also.
36. Adverting to the second question of law Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC provides that the judgment of the appellate court shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.
37. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanailal and others Versus Ram Chandra Singh and others; (2018) 13 SCC 715 has observed in paragraph 12 that it is clear from mere reading of Rules 31(a) to (d) that it makes legally obligatory upon the appellate court (both first and second appellate court) as to what should the judgment of the appellate court contain.
38. This court in the case of Raj Kumar and others Versus Ashok Kumar Chaurasia and 3 other;2015 SS Online All.9373 has held that where parties have led the evidence and said evidence has been considered for recording finding and if controversy is discernible from the judgment, then non-framing of points for determination does not vitiate the judgment and same will be treated to be substantial compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
39. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.Amalorpavam and others Versus R.C.Diocese of Madurai and others; (2006) 3 SCC 224 has held that non-compliance with the provisions may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void, and may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it and the second appellate court is in a position to ascertain the findings of the lower appellate court.
40. In view of above merely because the points of determination have not specifically been stated, the judgment may not vitiate because it can be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with the provisions i.e. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the higher appellate court is able to ascertain the findings of the lower appellate court.
41. Learned counsel for the appellant had also failed to disclose as to which issue has not been framed and evidence has not been considered and only submitted that the points of determination have not been framed while the judgment has been passed after considering the submissions of the parties and the evidence and also the case laws specifically considering the pleadings and evidence in regard to issues on which the arguments were advanced. Therefore, this court is of the view that there is substantial compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the judgment does not vitiate on this ground.
42. In the present case the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant/plaintiffs with the allegation that Smt. Raji had re-married after the death of jagesar, therefore, they had become the owner of her property in view of Section 172 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act. As discussed above the plaintiff-appellants have failed to prove the re-marriage of Smt. Raji and possesson over the property, therefore, the decree passed by the learned trial court has rightly been set aside and suit has been dismissed in accordance with law.
43. In view of above this court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or error in the judgment and order dated 05.03.2011 passed by the First Appellate Court. The substantial questions of law framed by this court are accordingly decided against the appellants.
44. This second appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
45. The lower Court record shall be remitted to the concerned court forthwith.
(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date:03.02.2020 Banswar