Karnataka High Court
A L Shama Rao vs A A Lakshman on 8 December, 2010
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 03TH DAY op DECEMBER?-« W. E ' THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE »AJIflf J«',"GIyJJI§I§}'2«SL AND é § _ THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V;NAGAiéA'r:.iNA R.F.A.Nos.93/2oo5_§;rw_ 241/20o5.." RFA.N0. 93/2005 BETWEEN: 1. s/0 A.L'AKSi.H;ivIAN 'RA0.HoYsA;LA AGEI1.A3G!_JT ' R/AT No;'2v1,3Q/'33, '_4ST._FLOOR, 50TH cnoss III BLOCK, BANGALORE'-560.V'O1(ia_ " s/_;o A;.L.sHAMA__RAo AGED-A,ABQUT 28 'YEARS '' " «R/AT'No.n¢2'i30/33 ' .-__ITs-T DFLg)'oR.D_ SQTH cnoss A . 1;I1fBLO.C~K_, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 V A.S.LAKsHM1 AD/o A;-L.SH.AMA RAO V. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ' 12-/.A=tr NO 210, IST FLOOR, 50TH cnoss III BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR f BANGALORE-560 010 1._ " PETITIONERS (By Sri: M..'B.CI~IANDRA CHOODA, ADV.) JUDGMENT
These appeais are disposed of by judgment, RFA.No. 93/2005 arises ' ., _.~--:».V11'tC1ff
0.S.No.8882/2001 and RFA.No.2:%iim/2l0aVs--«._jari%s.¢§ ' - 8743/2001 filed by the apple-llants._A judge has recorded common e'v:i:dencev. tfilielllcases and has passed common.jxudgnient.;':' lluring course of the judgment, parties as per their status before thve.:tr-ial
2. .... ..re1atingfitr:-Q.'§.Nos.8882/2001 and 8743/2601 «.can.V't3e as follows:
TF3 said ..'*V5ll1i.t'.'-isdvorie. for declaration of titie and in zres;ieAc't"'of the suit schedule property i.e., riremises No.210/38, 50"' Cross, III Block, Rajlajlinagarrl'.v'vE_aiigalore--10. The genealogy as could be seen the plaint averrnent indicates that one i;a».!rshinan Rao was married to Lakshmidevamma. They second son, first defendant is the thirdson and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of the first defendant i.e., Shamarao. Indeed, we are not concerned 1"-The learned trial V sons and two daughters. The second plaintiff is 1 i.i'substanti'ally;"contributing to the family. i.nasm1ichias the entire family was residing in a hfeuxseiand his father _j_ with the other children or the brothers of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 except mentioning their a. e inasmuch as they are not parties to the Plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 hadfour'niore'p'fi-fovtheprs.Wu' ii"
i. e. , A. C.Rukmangacia, A. C.Padm:anah'hai1 . i i and A. Gopal and they had gtyvo isisiters i'.e.A.,§pKani3a1a N.Murthy and Radha Shivashanit'ar. grandfatiher i.e., late Lakshrnan Rao was:_a':«sch'o.ol.' a large family as could be seen The second plaintiff i.e., l§.n'.e.~nirhar:ami1--i.viavas :.ixrel~1..._educated and he completed his e.i;gih'eiering.'-course and he was serving in the Stateof 'Pra'de'sh. other sons who were not veryiiweli~educated_iand"did not have any substantial incorne. It is tvheirg cia3éi"'that ever since plaintiff No.2 ~"'j.qine.drse_r.fxfice. he iiias"'taking care of the entire family by The second piaintiff to acquire property at Bangalore rented .5-nag iiaiere employed. The income of the father was "-«hardly sufficient to meet the expenses of the family. In 'view of this situation. the second plaintiff acquired a site that is the suit site in Bangalore in the name of his had retired and none of the other 4 s_1{-jwv mother and built a house thereon and met the financial obligations. The first defendant did not have any Therefore, he set up a printing press and work_shopV'..sof.I' that he may also earn sufficiently, if unfortunately he did not come up in! thatiiield. 5 'A ' "
3. Suffice it to say tiiat'~..the CITE. the suit property in favour of Laksyhrrian 'Rao, .but__hoyiI?ever, ' before the formalities eo'u1.d.be inasmuch as before the depositvof bal:arrc»eisale.pécyonisideration and the possession certificate__. being. ,hé"a1ed. Hence, all the children Vthat. the one of the sisters consented f-or Veiiec-utior1»_:ovf__ a -'leasemum-sake deed in favour of their mother Laltshmidevamma. This was in __the year 1959".' ..._r'Vl'hereafter, the ground floor was in«.the years 1961-62 and the first floor 1.e., the rn'at:'ter of the present proceeding was i pconstructped the year 1969. It is the definate case of /,,,,,«.._fl_fIV;§3intiff No.2 that the sale consideration of the property if W.ell:'as cost of construction was met by him. Hence, the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. » jiflndeed, it is the further case of the plaintiff that the Bangalore Development Authority executed an absolute . sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.2. It is also their ..//* '
--l(}~ 1/6"' share in their favour. This is the brief summary of the pleadings of the suit instituted by the
0.S.No.8882/2001. N H' N V'
6. This takes us to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in»'0'_,.S. partition and separate posses_s'io_n éjérusal of V O.S.No.8743/01 showis_"':t.ha'.tiilthpeilijplaintiffstherein have , sought for partition of 1/6"' share in also declare the gift j2::'ii';j5u."eof(ai'}[_executed by defendant No.1 as nuli, void and not binding ,.----the said suit. their father is defen_dant"NoV.1Vand'*vth'e;pIaintiffs in 0.S.No.8882/01 are étiiki,/Ii;Al~.:er'v.defendants. It is only defendant Nos. 3 and 4 their written statement denying the I and reiterated the pleadings in the suit filed them.
7. On the basis of the spacious pleadings, learned trial judge has framed the following issues in both the suits:
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that site of the suit schedule property was purchased by , Z, .,/ .
4;}, plaintiff No.2 in the name of his mother investing money of his own earnings ?
2. Whether plaintiffs prove that _sfu'i't--«i..'_' schedule property is a portion ofgthe-._ W building constructed out of the self--ea.rni_'ngs"~._' ofplaintif_'fNo.2 ?
3. Whether plaintiffs pro.ve';J.that'v_'v_tthe '~ it defendants have no r'ig.ht over thef suit, schedule property ?
4. Whether defe.ndan,t- "No; I proves " that suit schedule property E was earn'ed by his father and it became' joint,faimily.i_property of the legal heirs of his_fathe_r .,
5. Whpethe§r'defendi1n.ts_prove that khatha was madei_'«in"'-the n-agme. 'of plaintifl" No.2 as kartha of th-:%: joint family '?
6. Whether'-»defe"ndd--nts prove that Court Fee paid is not ffic__ie«.n;t ?
'7; ~ Whether plaintiffs are entitled for suit .....
V l. order or decree ?
¥£!b] suit in O.S.8743/2001 was pending before CCH 32 this suit, the following Issues were framed by C.C.H.32:»
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the patties herein constitute joint Hindu undividedfamily ?
-;3_
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule property is the joint family and ancestral property of the parties to the suit ? h
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove thatA"t--hey"Wf'*-- i are entitled for 1/6"' share each in_the'~--su'it"~ schedule property and separate possess.io.n''w ' of the same by metes and bounds"? " '--
4. Whether the p1v.ai:=..¢i;j* 'tencite1ee;Vp.f§r- "
mesne profits ? "
5. Whether plaintiyffs prove that the gift deed, dated""31..,5;.2C*{O.l 'executed by the first defendant inpfai:'oz1r__..of.A_*~the second defendant at clo'cunf1en't_ "817j'O1'"~Q2 is null and void . '
6. 1 prove that the s'u"it--._is;5 fo,rV.__non;poinder of necessary ipartiesfl? .
7. To ichat are the parties entitled
-- .. to '? ' .
~__To what order or decree '?
support of their respective contentions, both ~t:Iie~ plaintiffs and the defendants in both the suits V 'A §1a4_v'eVV"'1.et--in evidence. On behalf of the plaintiffs in i"A,_iV'(}.A$.No.8882/O1 they have examined themselves as PW's.1 and 2 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have been examined as I}Ws.1 and 2 respectively and in support of their respective contentions, the plaintiffs have "'v-docuranentary in their proper perspective. not necessarily give an indication P.W.2 during the course of 3
-}_3- produced 50 documents which are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-50 and the defendants have produced 29 docurnents marked as Exs.l)--l to D~29.
having regard to the evidence The learned triai' «' it Iet--~in by both..th'ex in support of their respective contentions'.pph'a_srdccreetl the suit of the plaintiffs,' in (i)V".?."-_.$i.'I"vIo.8£5ip8~'i¢,/'A.(§'1i' it dismissed the suit in o.s.No.87°43_]'o1.
9. We have heardythe appearing for the appellantefiand the both the suits. it 'appearing for the defendant--appeilant:s.it that the learned trial Judge has looked into the evidence, either oral or not questioning the consent letters given bypdefendant No.1 as well as other brothers does that the property in V' question would be an exclusive property of plaintiff No.2. fie further submits that there is a clear admission by evidence that he has no documents to show that he had sent any money to his father for purchase of the suit schedule property and He further ' -14- also for construction of the first floor. He further submits that the specific case made out by the is that the suit schedule property is the property of plaintiff No.2. In the absence i that he had parted with the money suit schedule property, learned trialdudge in recording a finding that that it is their self-acquired that Vithey are entitled for a declaration".A._V§lf'~'title\\\/:.:ihiigfviiifurther submits that the specific'p:;.ci*ise :rnade.a~':outAil3y_"thheidefendants is that the property to the father it was his setf-acqiuired i his' children, namely the brothers entitled for a share in the suit scheduleu'pr.operty.iA'..li1«:.the circumstances, learned trial T '~ E\y:asVVp_not Ajiustified in decreeing the suit. Kalyan Shetty, in support of the appeal. which is filed by the children of 'defendant No.1 in the companion suit. submits that indeed. property in question is the self acquired property "of their grand father.
12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff--respondents ' supports the judgment and decree of the trial court. He X M x '
-1}-
submits that oral evidence let in by the plaintiffs would clearly disclose that the second plaintiff was an _4Engirxl2eer and was working at Bhopal right from the _ it is revealed in the correspondence between father*«.. and the son which shows that financial help. Hence, he s'ub__mits"t_hat the»'engtVire for the purchase of the bit CITB was paid by him_ » on one occasion the bArgothersVV_antiVg that it is the secon_d'p;laintiff, of the property in as various documents.
Hence,' the learned trial Judge was the suit.
E3. in. far as the appiéal filed by the plaintiffs in 0.8.8743/2007 is concerned. the learned trial Judge was justified in dismissing' the suit since it is a suit for partition and _ separate possession of 1/6"' share, as the other sharers if giurere required to be made parties to the proceedings and glin their absence, the question of allotting 1/6th share to the plaintiffs does not arise. Hence, according to him the trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit. f3 1 ~§t"3m We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions urged by the parties. The following arise for consideration:-
a) Whether the oral and docupmentcii-y---liévildence would disclose that plqint,i_f_"}f 5}ANo.2.;.,__in,__ O.S.No.8882/2001 is the absoiate came:-».of"r:ie.p"' suit schedule propertgfand entitled a gift to plaintt:ffNo.1'?z7«.:' V i' I iv b} Whether the evia"~ence"on_ tvouldlfesvtablish the fact that the _._mb'n¢5iJ.:for"tfD@truction was met by pf3ivntiff.NG"§? . .. . ._ To ansxngr necessary for this Court to:.:look_'inte ;i:V'ee_oi-ap:1\»..;,_;,¢1t documentary evidence.
14. etearlier. in support of the ...V.pleadir.i.gs "regardi"n--gVt_itle. the 19* plaintiff has examined and plaintiff No.2 has been examined hirnself as Indeed. in the examination--in--chief of V the pl'ain't:iff,".:what has been stated is nothing but a if "r.elite.ratiofi of the plaint averrnents. In so far as the f _ ecrcsseicamination is concerned. it has come on record the income of the grand father was between Rs.50 if "to Rs."70/- per month. He has also deposed that his father i.e., plaintiff No.2 has been working in Bhopal in fire J «K "13, the City Improvement Trust Board on 25/4/1961, we . propose to examine the documents at the later stage. For the present, we propose to examine £n¢4...§a-;;1..,_ evidence adduced by the parties. This is the _ which is let in by the first plaintiff.
16. It is the case of-.__.P.Wi.'2_'that self~acquired property and thie=.._xten_tirea'eiipenses for purchase of the site was perusal of his I evidence, which is filedAVV_h3'i'r 'affidavit would indicate that h_e"G:1ia'duated Civil.V"En_,gfineering in the year fortuilti/s.Gannon Dunkerly Cornpanv7.for- sixpp a consolidated salary of Rs.500V/~_--v p.rn".~ and_.iV:.inc_ei'l£is services were satisfactory, 'JV'i"--2e sshifted iro'm'«'VBanga1ore to Madhya Pradesh. service and'r:j_oi¥ned a permanent Government job and Vt*.__d*=.vorked.. for the Madhya Pradesh Government for an I '~i'nitiial<--..psa1ary Qt' Rs.1,000/~ 11.31. We notice that an "".'atté;active initial salary which was drawn by him. He uflwould also refer to the various emoluments which he was getting inclusive of Dearness Allowance, Visitation Allowance, Project Allowance, thus amounting to aftecreaching Madhya Pradesh, he quit private has also not stated anything as to what happened to the said money. Indeed, he would admit that elder brother plaintiff No.2 went to Madhya Pradesh after Degree in Engineering and has been working there it then and has stayed there. In so far as ' concerned, he would admit that it his married, income of his wife carneto his marriage was perforrned, i"~IiAe_.would depose that after construction-- floor, his brothers and sist"7yii«¢v.l_h£?'\:ré' He would specifically that-lg _/they __..h'ave constructed the ground and obtained the ficence £611 vsarne. In so far as the 1 animosity or idistruSfv._h§.$ween the brothers is concerned, it adniit that 'after 1973 the distrust widened and them but however, no untoward toio'lt:'j_Vplace to increase the distrust. He would also that his brother P.W.2 was not at all with the family affairs and he would admit is not aware whether his other brothers have . any action with regard to the suit schedule "property neither did he ask the children or the other fly brothers as to what action they have taken. He would % & //' ./"' ' 'gr' .
I--J W admit that he has not paid any amount to them and has no idea about paying money to P.W.2. Indeed, a perusal of the evidence would disclose that it is his the property in question i.e.. site was purchasedlhyvtheilrli V' father from his earning and be having" fled, was registered in their mother's nainpe the consent given by all the and sisters are entitled for a suit schedule property; that at during the course of evideneeeflh he V lglround floor construction during that-yearm1l961 and since there was the brothers have contributed if to 14,000/--~ towards the constr1f4ct_ionl.i"*«.V l A if lalivthe evidence which is iet in by the _ one of the defendants, namely, the sonilof was also examined. A perusal of the said. eiridence does not disclose that he has any i:r1~owle«dgelllas to how the property was acquired. Indeed. course of his cross~examination. 'he would that he was not personally aware of the affairs of E 4 the properties of the grand father and he is not aware I _M,,»*"
.2' I-/6 ' X. document dated 17/4/1972.
~2h--
share in the suit schedule property. This has been replied to by the plaintiffs.
21. Another document of which we prong:-.o:)l§'sel:'tllnj;~ V. refer is Ex.P.46 which corresponds to " l is an agreement entered into 1:é£{veen_ Fthe Lakshmidevamma and the C.I.'l'.B. in'.res_pect the Ex.P.49 is a letter which is preseiwzed It is no doubt true that a...conten"Lionllis._.urged"before us that out of sentimental by his father is preserirpvedll same would indicate =i_r1 pcfmnloney. It also indicatesgthat on._t"i':e'd'ate when the letter was Written, the'fan:il}?l'tx{aslplnot"';vell of and the earnings were _ not enough to "'m_aintain the family. Ex.P:50 is an in7,enderpsen'ient,given by the K.E.B. on an application made pi-aintiff'£Sio;il2~'indicating as to when the power was givenito the-first floor of the building and a perusal of sameviould indicate that it was given 25/ 1/ 1969, indeedfthe applicant is none other than plaintiff No.2.
22. This takes us to Ex.P.4.~ which is another Indeed. it would indicate that the said. letter is signed by the brothers of plaintiff 4w"/M?
No.2, including defendant No.1. The case of the defendants is that the property in question was_4.se-if-~.V_ acquired property of their father/ grand father.'_.lllndee-d,_l".
at the earliest point of time, in the . would have certainly asserted that .i the property. The defendantshaye vhlciiosetiitoi even at that point of time. also the signatory to Ex.P.4. ' ..
23. This us' by the defendants.ll'A_per§V1s'all:_ that it is an application....rnade Rao to the ' Chairmaniof "all'o.t1nent of a site. We would refer onlyli av' made in i the said .__appIica_§tion.. them is regarding the income at is reference to the income per has stated that his pension is _Rs.7i5"f.~ p'er~.iArnonth and another Rs.50/~-- from other Zthus totaling to Rs.125/»-- per month. In which refers to the name and occupation of i family members he has stated that plaintiff No.2 if " ~ hand one of his brothers at the particular point of time were working and they were earning. V fl we J/fl' e ' A33-
24. In so far as the source of funds for construction of the building is concerned, it is stated that it is from the insurance amount and__e'arn1.n.gs': :_. if of the children. It is no doubt, true that a is if taken before us by the learned :C.egunsel':'tAfo:r"-- defendants that the "earnings o'f._"childre--n:
necessarily mean that the earnings' of the~.nlaintiff No.2 as well as the other brothers: Tbut afe..gnot inclined to accept this contention in as asZ"injg~.the evidence, the first defen'dan_tT would he has not contributed and purchase of .
the sarnei" thedvfieiw that with reference to some other are sought toebe made availablfir it uiould«b§ ci/fiirthat defendant No.1 was not enough rn'one--_--';«." Indeed. at the relevant point of 'tiniieiwhengthe application was made for a site, it is only the §?o.2 and his brother Gopal who were _ 'Working... if Ex.D.3 is the letter addressed by all the :.V'C.I.'I'.B., indicating that there have absolutely no objection to transfer the site alloted in favour of their mother Lakshmidevamrna, and they have given their ,4.
,l....»-/ ""..Vbro§thers including one daughter, to the Chairman of ' age
-23% consent for execution of the deed and in View of their consent for transfer, they have put their signature the said communication. We also notice that-.fthii's~l' document dated 6/5/' 1960 is prior to it 10/ 8/ 1960, which is in respect of tiransfperp of Site No.210, which is the: suit schedule?_.property.." Ex.§).-4 would indicate that thet»._:transfer~.isperrhitted more so. having regard given all the brothers.
26. We4..alsc1:Et:i"#;.pt~el: uiislllmuch prior to E:sc.P.4 and of the year 1972.
Ex.D.7 an ~,/'»fi?ida'vit'iel::e:cuted~l by defendant No.1 and the other brotthers, 'consenting that the site may be __allotte.dli11. favo'u-ruolf Lakshmidevamma and that they lflhave. ohjection for the said allotment being made in fai.'our__p.ofv4:Anan'tharamu (plaintiff No.2). Indeed. this _letter'«. wouldalso indicate that the brothers have, W H " :°--pra.ctically given up their right in respect of the property .iri=t1uestion and the necessary transfer fee has also been H'-caoltlected. Ex.B.6 is an Indemnity Bond executed by it " 'tplaintiff No.2 indemnifying his mother. Indeed, if defendant No.1 and his other brothers were also claiming
--3{}-
a share in the property, they would also have joined with plaintiff No.2 in executing the Indemnity Bond.
27. We propose to refer to only three"
documents i.e.. Exs.I).18, 19 and 20. Indeed~,'..':the-.roral "
evidence of defendant No.1 disielosesy thatch' himself nor his brothers have inyesitedii towards purchase of the site o--r__i'1"o_r the niattier towards construction of the ground ar::.!_:"firs:tu floor.--.._ This is further strengthened 'three which are Ex:s.D.18 to 20. u_:VE2g:.D.?i'8"'is:V;rei'eifabie'. letter of . appointment_issued:hy Mys<ore 'El-ectrical Industries Limited,i7_wherein;.'dei'endanvt__ ?~lo.1 was appointed for a period of six; months" 12/ 1961 on a temporary __basis._§iEx..D.19" letter of appointment issued by lEliecvti*ical Industries Limited on 11/5/1961, basic salary would be Rs.90/- per , _month plus other allowances. Ex.D.20 is another letter h /1964 issued by Mysore Electrical industries wherein, the pay of defendant is shown as
- per month. We observe that the first defendant «also has a family of his own and after deducting the personal expenses, we are of the View that nothing would remain to purchase a site or to put up construction on m_7,§-
the ground and first floor. It is no doubt true that a statement is made by the first defendant that 'e obtaining necessary technical education ;_. printing, he has set up a printing press an-d--».assVu'm:in_g that he has earned income from saidiAprint.ing--.press.i the said amount was sought Vt'o_be invested speiseytrherie. We are of the view that there isl4i'ab'solute'ly'. evidence on the part of the deife'nda1its:_ that "diather- Lakshrnan Rao had enou_gh.__inVcorne«..::te.fV_'ipnrchase the property and i had surplus amount to Vtheeéground floor or for that Italso relevant to note that the to 1st floor and not the ground tloor} A it .9 V " 'rvno doubt true that there is some evidence has been let in by the parties indicating that theirgtnother had four sites and the four sites were and the said money was being used for construction. however. that remains only an assertion in as much time and again it is stated that any amount of oral evidence without any foundation for the same cannot be looked into. Indeed, on a perusal of the entire material evidence anti on a preponderance of probabilities, we are of the view that the learned trial Judge was justifiet§,_in. hoiding that some amount was being sent by 2"' if to augment the family income.
29. We also note that the allotment of a site was the year 1958. Right from of the suit i.e.. almost 40 the 'No.1 has not raised his little finger assertingvijregarding the property in self acquisition of his fatherané. for a share. It is only when an is-'sent, the suit is filed by the childreniof claiming their 1/ 6"' share "making other sharers as parties. We also » pension of Lakshman Rao with other not-:"even sufficient enough for sustenance i _of the_ fairziliyig' Aiavhich is implicit from Ex.P.49 wherein, hastiwritten a letter to the son i.e.. plaintiff No.2 him about the penurious circumstances in the family was placed. We also note that before Tplaintiff No.1 shifted his place of operation from Bhopa}. to Bangalore, the grouné floor was occupieé by one of his father's brothers and his children anti withoutia demur c 1*-%;'-4% that they are entitled for a share. the fact that the other legal heirs who are also entitled for a similar share suit schedule property having not been made partiesi,p'_~w_ie3 _.__ if are therefore of the view that the suit is liab_le..tVo"'efailffor if non-joinder of necessary parties.
30. It is also brought defendant No.1 is no longer tflgfitiiiedirle property and it has that he has put up a construction else*.ir_h'ereVi.i:een residing there with his as of now are the two chi1dren:..o'ffirst«diefendanti;§ iirho are residing in the first Vvfiocr'. _isianoEther' reason for us to hold that at no pointéof tirVne,""de--fe"ridfant No.1 has exercised his "~_acquired'property of his father and is entitled for a share} 4 i
31..R}_Indeed, whenever a partition takes place all I the Vrnernbers are required to be made parties to the '"2___":prd;ceedings and they have not been made as parties, "",hence we are of the view that the suit itself is not maintainable. Indeed, we also hold that the property in question is the self acquired property of plaintiff No.2 __right the property in question, which is'the self i35_ and the question of granting a decree in favour of the suit filed by defendants 2 and 3 would not arise.
32. Hence. the findings recorded by the_:i'learn'eid if trial Judge that they are not entitledifor a 1i)&arti,tion aise does not warrant for any interference. Having said we are of the view that both' consideration. The learned triaidiidge'~has 'assessed both oral and documentary and has recorded a finding of the evidence, wg different View than the .... tii..eyVV_1earned trial Judge. Consequentiy', -are dismissed.
Havingflwregard to the close relationship inter_se the plaintiffs and defendants, we deem it" six months time to the defendants to if _quit "and,.__'de!i?&er vacant possession of the suit schedule firoperty'vto the plaintiffs and such grant of time shall be _s21bj~eent to the following conditionsw 1} All the defendants shall file an undertaking before this Court agreeing to vacate the suit schedule property within six months from today;
w3(§v
2) They shall not create any third party rights; 3} They shall not drive the plaintiffs to exec-iiite. the decree;
Such an undertaking shail be filec1_-"bei§)re'''~:i:}1.iAs "
Court. within four weeks from today}. if ¢$fi!"
* ~.'§u.d<39 Sd/"1