Gauhati High Court
On The Death Of Suleiman Ali His Legal ... vs Mustt. Safia Khatoon & Ors on 24 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 (NOC) 1000 (GAU.)
Author: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Bench: Prasanta Kumar Deka
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Case No: RSA 94/2006
On the death of Suleiman Ali his legal heirs Ahad Ali & Ors
...... Appellants
-Versus-
Musstt. Safia khatoon and Ors.
...... Respondents
BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA For the Appellants : Mr. N. Dhar & Mr. T.U. Laskar For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Kalita & Mrs. T.Goswami Date of Hearing : 30. 03. 2017 Date of delivery of Judgment and Order : ___24.07.2017_________ JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The appellants before this Court are the defendants in Title Suit No. 50/94 which was filed by the plaintiff/respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 2, at Nagaon. Page 1 of 20
3. The facts, banking on which the plaintiff/respondent filed Title Suit No. 50/94, within a short compass is that suit land measuring 15 bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas covered by Dag No. 258,286,187,326 and 327 of 1968-69 settlement situated in Chankhula under Gurubat Mouza in the District of Nagaon, originally belonged to Mohiran Nessa, the mother of the plaintiff/respondent. Mohiran Nessa died on 27.11.1992 leaving the plaintiff/respondent as her sole legal heir. The mother of the plaintiff/respondent married one Babar Ali who had also a second wife and from her side, Alaluddin and Jalaluddin are the sons who are impleaded in the Title Suit as the principal defendants No. 1 &
2. After the death of the mother of the plaintiff, the suit land measuring 15 bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas referred hereinabove was looked after by her husband Babar Ali (the father of the plaintiff). Mohiran Nessa died on 27.11.1992 and in the month of December, 1992, the plaintiff/respondent came to know that the principal defendant Nos. 1 & 2 got their names mutated over 6 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lechas of land. Having the said information, the plaintiff/respondent through her husband filed an application for cancellation of the names of the principal defendants No. 1 & 2 and vide order dated 18.01.1993, the Circle Officer, Kampur cancelled the said names of the principal defendants No. 1 & 2. Again the said defendants No. 1 & 2 filed two separate Misc. Cases for mutation of their names and on 31.07.1993, the plaintiff/respondent came to know that out of 15 Bighas 3 Kathas Page 2 of 20 5 Lechas of land (the suit land), the principal defendants No. 1 & 2 in collusion with the Revenue Authority mutated their names to the extent of 6 Bighas of land in their names on the basis of a fake registered sale deed bearing No. 2556/81 wherein Mohiran Nessa had been shown to be the executant.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent that her mother never executed the said sale deed No. 2556/81. It is also pleaded that the said principal defendants No. 1 & 2 tried to dispossess the plaintiff/respondent following which a proceeding u/s 145/146 of the Cr.P.C had to be initiated against the said principal defendants No. 1 & 2. However in the said proceeding, the possession was declared in favour of the said defendants No. 1 & 2 and on the basis of that order the plaintiff/respondent was dispossessed by force and they are occupying the suit land described in Schedule 'Ka' illegally. The sale deed is a fraudulent one and the defendants including the principal defendants No. 1 & 2 are the trespassers in respect of Schedule Ka land. Accordingly, the plaintiff/respondent sought for the reliefs of declaration of her right, title and interest and possession in respect of Ka Schedule land and the possession on the 'Ga' Schedule land, and for declaration that the sale deed covering land described in Schedule Ka is a fake, fraudulent one and injunction restraining the defendants.
5. The defendants No. 1 & 2 contested the suit filing their joint written statement and on the other hand, the present Page 3 of 20 appellants No. 1 & 2 (who are defendants No. 2 (a) and 6) filed separate written statement. However none of the defendants preferred any counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff/respondent. The defence taken by the defendants including the present appellants are that Mohiran Nessa is not the owner of the said land. The appellants/defendants are also owners of the suit land and they have been enjoying their respective shares by constructing houses thereon. Mohiran Nessa during her lifetime sold 1 Bigha 2 Katha 10 Lechas of land to the defendants No. 1 & 2 and the same is being enjoyed by way of right of purchase. The defendants No. 1 & 2 has in total 7 Bighas 2 katha 10 Lechas land and the remaining land is under the possession of the maternal uncle of the plaintiff/respondent i.e the present defendants/appellants No. 1 & 2.
6. It is the case of the defendants/appellants that the suit land originally belonged to one Ibrahim Ali, the grandfather of the plaintiff/respondent, who sold land to Babar Ali, through registered sale deed. But as the land was covered by annual patta, the name of Babar Ali had not been mutated in the Revenue Records. Subsequently, name of Mohiran Nessa was mutated in the periodic patta. Babar Ali purchased 1 Bigha 2 Katha 10 Lechas land in the name of Jalaluddin, the defendant No. 2 in the year 1978. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 & 2 vide registered sale deed purchased 6 Bighas of land from Mohiran Nessa and took delivery of possession and since then they have been enjoying the Page 4 of 20 suit land. The plaintiff/respondent's suit is false and baseless for which the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. The present defendants/appellants in their written statement pleaded that land measuring 15 Bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas belonged to Md. Ibrahim, son of Nandu Sheikh. The land was settled with Ibrahim Ali in the year 1935-36. Ibrahim along with two brothers namely Usmat Ali and Rusmat Ali migrated to Assam in the year 1936. Ibrahim deposited settlement premium to Colonization Officer in 1935. On 08.10.1948, the Deputy Commissioner issued khiraj periodic patta to Ibrahim Ali under patta No. 26 and since then Ibrahim Ali and the present defendants/appellants have been paying revenue. In 1956-58 periodic patta was again issued in the name of Ibrahim over the suit land. Ibrahim had three heirs namely the present defendants/appellants and Mohiran Nessa, the mother of the plaintiff/respondent. After death of Ibrahim, suit land was inherited by them and the present defendants/appellants got 6 Bighas 10 Lechas land each and Mohiran Nessa 3 Bighas 13 Lechas of land. Mohiran Nessa was married to Babar Ali.
8. It is the case of the defendants/appellants that after death of Mohiran Nessa the plaintiff/respondent manipulated revenue record of the suit land by showing Mohiran Nessa as the daughter of Nandu Sheikh and accordingly she mutated the suit land in her name. The defendants/appellants had their residence over the suit Page 5 of 20 land since 50 years and both of them are owners with respect to the 6 Bigha 1 Katha 6 Lechas land each over the suit land and the remaining 3 Bigha 13 Lechas land is the share of Mohiran Nessa and as such the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to 3 Bigha 13 Lechas of land as per the Mohamedan Law. Accordingly, the defendant/respondents prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
9. On the basis of the pleadings the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:_ I. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for the suit?
II. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land?
III. Whether the sale deed as mentioned in schedule 'ka' is fraudulent one and as such liable to be dismissed?
IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of khas possession in respect of schedule Gha land by evicting the defendant Nos. 1 & 2?
V. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
VI. Whether the suit is valued properly?
VII. To what relief or reliefs parties are entitled under
the law and equity?
Addl. Issues:-
Page 6 of 20
VIII. Whether the suit land is inherited by the defendant
No. 2 (a) and 6 from their predecessor in interest of Ibrahim Sheikh?
10. The parties to the suit adduced their respective evidence. The trial Court after hearing the parties partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent declaring that she is entitled to get only 1 Bigha 2 ½ Katha 13 Lechas of land and the present defendants/appellants, each are entitled to get 6 Bighas 1 Katha 6 Lechas of land. It is out of the suit land that the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to 3 Bigha 0 Katha 13 Lechas of land and as the defendants No. 1 & 2 are possessing 1 and ½ Bighas of land of the plaintiff/respondent's share, as such she is entitled to the extent of 1 Bigha 2 ½ Katha 13 Lechas of land as held vide Judgment and decree dated 20.06.2003 in Title Suit 50/94. The Trial Court discussed the issue No. 2, 3 and 8 jointly and came to the finding relying the evidence of DW- 1(Defendant/Appellant No.1) that the suit land measuring 15 Bigha 3 Katha 5 Lechas belonged to Ibrahim Ali (father of DW-1).
11. The Trial Court going through the exhibits A, B, C and D which are the receipts against payment of premium issued by Colonization Officer and the annual khiraj patta issued on 08.10.1948 in the name of Ibrahim, son of Nandu Sheikh, the exhibits E and F which are the draft chitta copy for the period 1957-58 and 1968-69, held that the suit land stood in the name of Page 7 of 20 Ibrahim Ali. On the other hand, the plaintiff/respondent relied exhibit-1 which is the copy of the jamabondi covering land measuring 15 Bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas under Dag No. 285, 286, 287,326, 327 of KP patta No. 34 for the settlement period 1968-
69. The said exhibit-1 consists of the note that as per the order dated 21.05.1974 passed in NRS 289/72-655/2-61, the same was made khiraj period in the name of Mohiran Nessa, showing the name of her father as late Nandu Sheikh. The trial Court discarded the said exhibit-1 on the ground that mere entry in the revenue record does not confer title unless it was made in accordance with law. The trial Court held that the plaintiff/respondent made out a false case and held that Mohiran Nessa cannot be the sole owner as the daughter of Nandu Sheikh.
12. The learned Trial Court relied the documents referred hereinabove and held that suit land belonged to Ibrahim Ali and not of Nandu Sheikh as contended by the plaintiff/respondent. It was also accepted by the Trial Court relying on the piece of evidence of DW-3, who is the official from the land Revenue Branch, that till 1957-58 settlement and 1968-69 settlement, Ibrahim Ali remained the owner on the entire suit dag of the land which was covered under annual patta. So far exhibit 1 is concerned, the learned trial Court disbelieved the same owing to the absence of any proof as to how the Deputy Commissioner passed the order dated 21.05.1974 as the original record had not been proved by the plaintiff/respondent to substantiate her Page 8 of 20 contention. Relying the evidence of DW-3 that there was no entry of the name of the Mohiran Nessa in the exhibit-E i.e the draft chitta it held that the same stood in the name of Ibrahim. Further considering the evidence of DW-3 the learned trial Court held that in the year 1968-69, the said dag number referred in draft chitha remained under annual patta and as there was no piece of evidence as to how the name of Mohiran Nessa entered in the jamabondi, finally the trial Court held that the name of Mohiran Nessa was inserted in the revenue record by manipulating the same. However, the trial Court held and declared that the exhibit- 6 on the basis of which the defendant No. 1 & 2 claimed to purchase 6 Bighas of land from Mohiran Nessa as false and forged document after obtaining expert opinion with respect to the thumb impression of Mohiran Nessa, who purportedly executed the same. On the other hand, the trial Court held exhibit-4, on the basis of which the defendant No. 1 & 2 claimed to purchase 1 Bigha 2 Katha 10 Lechas of land from Mohiran Nessa out of the suit land shown in exhibit 1 jamabondi to be valid. Finally, the trial Court held the issue No. 2, 3 & 8 partially in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.
13. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/respondent preferred T.A. No. 40/03 before the learned court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Nagaon against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 50/94. The First Appellate Court after hearing the parties allowed the Page 9 of 20 appeal decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff/respondent reversing the findings of the Trial Court.
14. While reversing the findings, the learned First Appellate Court took into consideration the premium paid vide exhibits A, B and C by Ibrahim Ali against the annual patta No. 26 (exhibit-d) for land measuring 15 Bighas 0 Katta 8 Lechas covered by various dag numbers. The exhibit-1, Jamabondi is also considered wherein the name of Mohirun Nessa is recorded in periodic patta No. 34. The said exihibit-1 records that on the strength of letter No. NRS 289/72-6552-61 and order dated 22.04.74 of Deputy Commissioner the same was converted to periodic patta. This order of conversion was taken into consideration holding that the annual patta exhibit-d standing in the name of Ibrahim Ali was converted to periodic patta No. 34. The said settlement was made final in the year 1968-69.
15. The learned First Apellate Court further held that against such cancellation, the present defendants/appellants did not prefer any appeal, which fact is supported by Fajar Ali (defendant No. 6) as DW-1. The evidence of DW-1 was considered to the effect that, he alongwith Suleman Ali (defendant No. 2 A) brother of DW-1 are residing over Govt. land but not over the suit land. It was held that Mohirun Nessa (mother of plaintiff/respondent), Fajar Ali (defendant No. 6) and Suleman Ali (defendant No. 2 A) are the legal heirs of Ibrahim Ali. The said two defendants did not Page 10 of 20 challenge the order of the cancellation of annual patta and/or settlement of land to Mohirun Nessa and as such they have lost their right, title and cannot inherit the property.
16. It was pointed out by the learned First Appellate Court that the defendant No. 2 A and 6 had not filed any counter claim claiming their share as per Mohammedan Law. Rather, Fajar Ali (defendant/respondent No.2) was the identifier of Mohirun Nessa while she purportedly executed Registered Sale Deed No. 2556 ( Exhibit-6) transferring land measuring 6 Bighas to defendants No. 1 and 2 out of the land covered by Jamabondi (exhibit-1) wherein, it was mentioned about the settlement of the land to Mohirun Nessa.
17. The learned First Appellate Court also took note of the various Regd Sale deeds Nos. 'Ka', 'Kha', 'Ga', 'Gha' etc by way of which Ibrahim Ali sold land covered by Annual Patta No. 26. However, the said First Appellate Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court whereby the Registered Sale deed bearing No. 2556 dated 20.07.89 (exhibit-6) purportedly executed by Mohirun Nessa in favour of the defendant No. 1 and 2 to be a false and fraudulent document. The said finding has not been challenged by the said defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It was also held by the said First Appellate Court that Mohirun Nessa had no right, title and interest over land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas covered by Dag No. 327, 1 Bigha, 2 Kathas 10 Lechas covered by Dag No. 326, which Page 11 of 20 was sold to the defendants No. 1 and 2 by Mohirun Nessa vide exhibit-4. Surprisingly, the learned First Appellate Court held land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas covered by 327 standing in the names of the present original appellants to be proper as their names are mutated. This finding is contradictory to the findings of the First Appellate Court itself, that the present defendants/appellants cannot claim any right, title over the land as it was settled with Mohirun Nessa as per the order recorded in exhibit-1. Finally, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of issue Nos. 2, 3 and 8 holding that plaintiff has got title over 12 Bighas 3 Kathas 15 Lechas of land out of 15 Bighas 3 Kathas 5 Lechas leaving the land covered by Dag No. 326 and 327 as aforesaid.
18. The defendant No. 2 A and 6 being dissatisfied with the reversal of the findings by the First Appellate Court preferred the Second Appeal, which was admitted on 21.07.2006 on the following substantial question of law:-
(I) Whether the learned appellate Court below was justified in reversing the finding of the learned Trial Court merely relying on jamabandi of 1968-69, Ext.1 in complete disregard to the established principle of law that mere entry of name in the jamabandi is no proof of title.
19. Mr. N. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the First Appellate Court failed to Page 12 of 20 consider the law holding the field that title cannot be declared merely on the basis of mutation entry in the Jamabondi. It is submitted that Ext-1 is the Jamabondi, wherein the name of Mohirun Nessa has been shown to be mutated with respect to the total land measuring 15 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lechas. The learned First appellate Court straightway taking note of the remarks with regard to conversion, held that the land under old annual patta No. 26 (exhibit-d) was converted and settled with Mohirun Nessa, the mother of the plaintiff/respondent. It is submitted that the First Appellate Court ought not have considered the order so recorded in the Jamabondi unless and until, the actual order of conversion and settlement was produced and proved before the Court. In order to buttress his argument, Mr. Dhar, relied (a) R am Das -Vs- Salim Ahm ed and Anr, reported in (1998) 9 SCC 719, (b) R.K . M adhuryyajit Singh and Anr. -Vs- Takhellam bam Abung Singh and others reported in AIR 2001 Gauhati 181 .
20. Mr. Dhar, citing Reg. 39 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 submits that the said provision clearly stipulates that no person shall merely on the ground that a settlement has been made with him be deemed to have acquired any right to or over any estate as against any other person claiming rights to or over that estate. This provision has been pressed as against the findings in the First Appellate Court that even it is presumed to be true settlement of suit land in favour of the Mohirun Nessa, then Page 13 of 20 also, the present appellants have the right to dispute the said settlement. Further it is submitted that the exhibits of the defendants/appellants gives the preponderance in favour of them and they are entitled to inherit their respective shares as per Mohammedan Law, which the learned trial Court rightly held. So Mr. Dhar submits that the substantial question of law is to be decided in favour of the appellants.
21. Mr. P.K. Kalita, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. T. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, submits that the First Appellate Court had held that there was no appeal filed, challenging the order of Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of which the suit land was settled with Mohirun Nessa. Already 20 (twenty) years had passed, at least till the date of filing the suit, but even thereafter also no appeal was preferred by the defendants/appellants. Further, it is submitted that there was no challenge to the title of the plaintiff/respondent by the defendants/appellants nor there is any counterclaim preferred by the said appellants claiming their shares and as such the learned Trial Court is wrong in declaring the share of the appellants. It is further submitted that, in such a situation there is no requirement on the part of the plaintiff/respondent to prove the patta standing in the name of Mohirun Nessa. Pointing the deposition of DW-1, Mr. Kalita submits the present appellants who are the brothers of Mohirun Nessa had no possession over any part of the suit land inasmuch Page 14 of 20 as the DW-1 deposed that he alongwith his brother are residing on Govt. reserve land but not over the suit land. Thus, Mr. Kalita supported the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.
22. Considered the submissions of both the learned counsels. Perused the records, the evidence and the exhibits. It is true, as submitted by Mr. Dhar, that the plaintiff/respondent must be successful on the basis of her own case, but not on the weakness of the defendants/appellants. In order to prove the title of Mohirun Nessa over the suit land, the plaintiff/respondent had exhibited Ext-1, the Jamabondi whereon, a note has been given that the land was settled with Mohirun Nessa on the basis of the specific case and letter issued and an order by the Deputy Commissioner whereafter, the periodic patta was issued to Mohirun Nessa. However, the said order and/or the letter referred in exhibit-1 purportedly issued by the Deputy Commissioner, has not been exhibited in order to prove the said fact. The appellate court below held that the original annual patta No. 26, exhibit 'd' standing in the name of Ibrahim Ali was cancelled and converted into the periodic patta No. 34 and land covered by it was settled in the name of Mohirun Nessa, the mother of the plaintiff/respondent. Both the Courts below held that Ibrahim Ali died leaving behind, the present appellants (substituted by their respective legal heirs in this appeal) and Mohirun Nessa, the mother of the plaintiff/appellant as his legal heirs. Page 15 of 20
23. The suit of the plaintiff/respondent is for declaration of her right, title in respect of land covered by Schedule 'kha' and her possession over Schedule ' Ga'. Both, the schedule 'Kha' and 'Ga' are the land covered by the Jamabondi, exhibit-1.
24. For such a declaration, there is a prime duty caste upon the plaintiff/respondent to prove her title and/or how the title vested on her and the right of ownership. In the present case in hand, except the Jamabondi, exhibit-1, no other Title deed has been proved. Further the said Jamabondi, Ext. 1 is not equivalent to periodic patta normally issued under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation after settlement of a particular plot of land to a particular person. Though, there is mention about the order on the body of exhibit-1, Jamabondi that is not sufficient in order to show her absolute title over the suit land.
25. In R am Das -Vs- Salim Ahm ed reported in (supra), the predecessor in interest of the respondent preferred a suit for declaration of Title and injunction contending inter-alia that the said predecessor-in-interest, Karimbux acquired title to the suit property by way of purchase from one Sarifan, who acquired title in turn from Bandijaan on the basis of a will. The appellants denied the title of the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to proof the title. The First Appellate Court upheld the findings. In the Second Appeal, the High Court placing Page 16 of 20 reliance on the copy of the will and as nobody objected to it, accordingly held that said Sarifan got title to the property. Thereafter on challenge being made, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
" It, however, appears to us that although the High Court indicated in the impugned judgment that the defendant's claim of easement right and also the claim of title by way of adverse possession could not be accepted, such weakness in the defendant's title to the suit property cannot establish the plaintiff's title. The High Court has failed to consider the specific finding made by the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff had failed to establish the plaintiff's title. It may be noted that the plaintiff was not entitled to get declaration of title if such title could not be established by the plaintiff by leading convincing evidence. The lower appellate Court had considered the evidence in detail and by giving cogent reasons had come to the finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the title to the property. Such finding was not reversed by the High Court by indicating any reason for such reversal but indicating the weakness of the defendant's title the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Even if it is assumed that the property in question was bequeathed by Bandi Jaan by executing the Will, the title to the suit property cannot be declared in favour of the plaintiff unless the title of the executor of the Will is fully established. In the aforesaid facts, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is therefore set Page 17 of 20 aside by allowing this appeal. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are restored. There will be, however, no order as to costs. "
26. Similarly in AIR 2001 Gau 181, (Supra) this Court held as follows:-
" On consideration of the entire materials/evidence on record, it appears that the title and the case of the plaintiff could not be established positively/affirmatively, Mutation of name of a person in the revenue record does not ipso facto create or extinguish the title of the person, nor does it lead to any presumptive value. The revenue records basically entitled a person to pay the land revenue. Mere entry in the revenue records does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the mutation in favour of the plaintiffs conveys title in their favour. "
27. From the ratio of the said decisions, it is clear that a plaintiff in a suit claiming his/her title over suit property, must prove his/her title and the manner how it devolved on the plaintiff. The submission of Mr. P.K. Kalita, the learned Senior Counsel that as the defendants/appellants did not challenge the title of the plaintiffs/respondent, so there was no duty cast upon the respondent to proof her title, cannot be accepted, if considered in the light of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which specifically cast the burden on the plaintiff/respondent to prove her title.
Page 18 of 20
28. Further, mutation entries in record of rights though cannot be brushed aside, but that alone cannot be the foundation of title. In the present case in hand, the plaintiff/respondent failed to exhibit and prove the order of settlement of land on Mohirun Nessa. Exhibit-1 simply shows the name of Mohirun Nessa, and the same was purportedly mutated on the strength of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Jamabondi cannot be equated with a period patta, which is normally issued to a particular person/persons after completion of a settlement/resettlement operation as per the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation thereby endowing the status of landholder to that particular person/persons. The said period patta is sufficient proof of title and the same is the origin of the title with respect to a particular immovable property. The said "periodic patta" is the proof of the lease entered into by the Govt. with the person to whom the settlement is offerred and accepted by the said person.
29. The learned First Appellate Court failed to consider that aspect of the matter and merely putting reliance on the said copy of Jamabondi, Ext-1, declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit property which is wrong. Thus the substantial question of law is decided in favour of the defendant/appellants. The Judgment and decree passed by the Page 19 of 20 First Appellate Court is set aside upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
30. No costs, Send back the LCR.
31. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is disposed of.
JUDGE B. DEY Page 20 of 20