Karnataka High Court
Chennamallayya Ningayya ... vs Sangappa Basappa Lakshatti And Ors on 13 November, 2024
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422
RSA No. 200251 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200251 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
CHENNAMALLAYYA
NINGAYYA SHIVAYOGIMATH,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DESHPANDE G. V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SANGAPPA BASAPPA LAKSHATTI
by SACHIN AGED ABOUT: 76 YEARS,
Location: HIGH OCC: BUSINESS (CLOTH MERCHANT),
COURT OF R/O. MAIN ROAD MUDDEBIHAL,
KARNATAKA DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
SHIVAYOGEPPA SANGAPPA KADI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2. SHARADA W/O SHIVAYOGEPPA KADI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. VEERESHWAR NAGAR,
MUDDEBIHAL, VIJAYAPUR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422
RSA No. 200251 of 2017
3. GEETA W/O SANTOSH KADLOOR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. VEERESHWAR NAGAR,
MUDDEBIHAL, VIJAYAPUR.
4. RENUKA W/O SHRISHAIL VAILI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O. C/O. SHRISHAIL VAILI HUNASAGI,
TQ. SURPUR, DIST. YADGIR.
5. PURNIMA W/O MAHENTESH ALMATTI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NARAYANPUR,
TQ. SURPUR,
DIST. YADGIRI.
6. SHANTA W/O SHARANU IDDALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. VEERESHWAR NAGAR,
MUDDEBIHAL, VIJAYAPUR.
7. SHARANABASAV SHIVAYOGEPPA KADI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: PEON,
R/O. VEERESHWAR NAGAR,
MUDDEBIHAL, VIJAYAPUR.
8. CHANNAPPA SIDDAPPA KANTI,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MAIN ROAD, MUDDEBIHAL,
VIJAYAPUR.
9. PRABHU SHIVALINGAPPA KADI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SWEETMART SHOP,
MUNICIPAL COMPLEX,
NEAR DURGA TEMPLE,
MUDDEBIHAL, VIJAYAPUR.
10. BABU PAYANNA BIRADAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS (BOOK STALL),
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422
RSA No. 200251 of 2017
R/O MAIN ROAD, MUDDEBIHAL,
VIJAYAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R10;
V/O DATED 30.08.23 TAKING OF STEPS IN R/O DECEASED
R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2017 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.14/2013 BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
VIJAYAPURA, INSOFAR AS DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY
THE PLAINTIFF AND ALSO ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTION
FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS WHEREIN THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.1.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.228/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MUDDEBIHAL WAS PARTLY CONFIRMED AND PARTLY
MODIFIED CONSEQUENTLY THEREBY DISMISSING THE SUIT
OF THE PLAINTIFF IN ITS ENTIRETY AND TO PASS ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDERS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.228/2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 the 'Trial Court') by which the Trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, declared him as owner of the suit property, however declined to grant relief of possession and injunction as sought for. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff had preferred the regular appeal in R.A.No.14/2013 before the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Vijayapur (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'). The respondents had filed their cross-objection. The First Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 29.06.2013 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff and allowed the cross-objection. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
2. The subject matter of the suit land RS No.66/1A measuring 04 acres situated at Muddebihal described in the sketch annexed to the plaint as ATSD (hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property).
3. The case of the plaintiff is that originally land bearing R.S.No.66 measuring 19 acres 17 guntas of Muddebihal Town was belonging to one Mahantayya -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 Panchayya Hosmath and others and the said owners had leased some portion of land to waddar community and had retained an area of about 18 acres 9.9 guntas. Plaintiff purchased an extent of 08 acres being western portion of said 18 acres 9.9 guntas of land from said Mahantayya Panchayya Hosmath and others under a registered deed of sale dated 29.09.1995 for a valuable sale consideration. That the plaintiff was put in actual physical possession of the western strip of 08 acres on the day of deed of sale. The area covered under the deed of sale is shown as ABMQRD in the plaint sketch. Thus, plaintiff became absolute owner of said area in possession and enjoyment of the same eversince from the date of purchase. The plaintiff had filed varadi before the Village Accountant seeking mutation of his name in the record of rights pertaining to the said land and was accordingly his name was mutated vide M.E.No.2497 dated 14.11.1995. Thereafter, plaintiff sold an extent of 02 acres out of said 08 acres of land in R.S.No.66/1 under a deed of sale dated 09.11.2000 in favour of one Basappa S/o Shivappa -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 Hiresakrannewar and the said portion has been shown in the letters TPRS in the plaint sketch. Similarly, the plaintiff had sold another extent of 01 acre in favour of Gurunath S/o Siddappa Sajjan under a register deed of sale dated 15.11.1995 which portion shown by letters PONQ in the plaint sketch. Plaintiff sold yet another extent of 01 acre in terms of deed of sale dated 15.11.1995 in favour of one Madanappa S/o Adiveppa Teli, also known as Sajjan which portion has been shown by letters OBMN in the plaint sketch. Thus, the plaintiff retained the plaint schedule property for himself and has been in possession, enjoyment and cultivation of the same.
4. That on 30.10.2001, when the plaintiff had been to the suit schedule property at that time defendants began to assert their false title over the suit land causing obstruction to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land by saying that the Assistant Commissioner had declared the suit land and remaining portion of the land bearing Sy.No.66 of -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 Muddebihal as a public property and threatened the plaintiff that they were going to dispossess him from the suit land within fortnight on the strength of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. That the said persons further asserted that they have got right to burry the dead bodies of members of Lingayath community in the suit land. The plaintiff accordingly approached the Assistant Commissioner, Vijayapur on 31.10.2001 and enquired about the application for conversion of suit land into non- agricultural land. After securing the records, he learnt that his application had been rejected and he being apprehensive of his title and possession was constrained to file the present suit.
5. It is contended that the defendants or the public of Muddebihal Town did not have right to bury the dead bodies in the suit land as it was never used for the said purpose and the Government had never acquired the said land for the said purpose. The said land has been used by the plaintiff and his predecessors in title only for -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 the purpose of agriculture and the observation made by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 16.10.2001 was false and concocted.
6. Plaint has been amended inserting para 8(a) contending further that even after plaintiff obtaining the exparte ad-interim order of injunction against the defendants, in the absence of plaintiff in the town have created false tomb and buried the dead bodies of some persons in the suit land. That the said act of the defendants did not amount to dispossession of plaintiff or the possession of the defendants over the suit schedule property as the same had taken place during the subsisting of order of temporary injunction. Therefore, it was pleaded that in the event of this Court finds plaintiff not being in possession, an alternate relief of possession be sought.
7. A plaint hand sketch is also enclosed to the plaint.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017
8. Defendant No.5 filed written statement denying even the plaintiff being the owner in possession of the land. It is contended neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor in title had anything to do in the suit land. It is contended that the suit property belonged to Guruparampara Math of which only a bachelor and sanyashi was the guru. That the said Math was a hereditary math. As such, no other heirs or persons with the family would become the head of the said Math. It is contended that the claim of plaintiff of he having been purchased the suit land on 29.09.1995 from one Mahantayya S/o Panchayya Hosmath is illegal. That the said Mahantayya S/o Panchayya Hosmath and others being married persons can never be the owners of the Math land and had no right to deal with the Math property. That the said deed of sale has been brought into existence on the basis of false and fabricated document with a mala fide intention of grabbing the land belonging to the math. The said deed of sale would not convey any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiff and same has been
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 executed by a person with the authority. That the entire extent of 18 acres 09 guntas of land is being used as the burial ground for the purposes of burying the dead bodies of lingayath community. An entry in this regard has been made in the revenue records even during the year 1927- 28 and the said land has been used for the said purposes time immemorial atleast over 100 years. The plaintiff with a malafide intention of forming plots in the said land and to sell thereafter had made an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Vijayapur seeking alienation of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. That upon the said application, officers visited the spot and found the land being used as burial ground accordingly rejected the application. As against the said application plaintiff had filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapur. Even the said appeal was rejected, thereafter the plaintiff preferred the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which has also dismissed and a writ petition against the said order has been filed by the petitioner. Even the said writ petition is also dismissed.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 That apart from the tomb, there are Neem trees grown in the suit property by the members of the Society. A Court Commissioner has also found existence of tomb including the graves of ancestors of the plaintiff. On these grounds sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues :
1. ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ zÁªÁ vÀ¥² À Ã®Ä ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß vÁ.29.09.1995 gÀ PÀAæ iÀÄ¥Àvz Àæ À jvÀå Rjâ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹zÁÝgA É iÉÄà ?
2. ªÁ¢AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgzÉ ÀÄ D PÀA æ iÀÄ¥Àvz Àæ À jvÀå CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁV ¸ÀéwÛ£À PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄävÀ ¸Áé¢Ãü £À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀĨsÉÆÃUÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÁÝgA É iÉÄà ?
3. ¥Àw æ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ zÁªÁ vÀ¥² À Ã®Ä ¸ÀévÀÄÛ °AUÁAiÀÄvÀ ¸Àä±Á£À ¨sÀÆ«Ä EgÀĪÀÅzÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹zÁÝgAÉ iÉÄà ?
4. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ PÉüÀĪÀ WÉÆõÀuÁvÀäPÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqA É iÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÁVgÀĪÀgÉ ?
5. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁ vÀ¥² À Ã®Ä ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥ÀqA É iÀÄ®Ä CºÀðjgÀĪÀÅzÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀzÁÝgA É iÉÄà ?
6. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ±Á±ÀévÀ ¥Àw æ §AzsPÀ ÁeÉÕ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqA É iÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÁVgÀĪÀgÃÉ ?
7. K£ÀÄ rQæ CxÀªÁ DzÉñÀ ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in a representative capacity seeking relief of declaration of title with possession and relief of
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 injunction and in alternative relief in case, any portion of the suit property not found in possession, to hand over the possession ?
10. Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and exhibited 17 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. Five witnesses have been examined on behalf of defendants as DW.1 to PW.5 and one document is marked as Ex.D1. A Court Commissioner had been appointed who has been examined as CW.1, 13 documents have been marked through the Court Commissioner as per Ex.C1 to Ex.C13. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court answered Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the affirmative, Issue Nos.2, 5 and 6 in the negative and consequently, decreed the suit in part, declaring the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. However rejected his prayer for possession and enjoyment. Being aggrieved, plaintiff preferred the regular appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.14/2013 to which the defendants have filed the cross-objection. Considering the grounds urged in
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 the memorandum of appeal, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration :
1) Whether the learned trial Judge erred in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of permanent injunction or alternative relief of possession, though it holds that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ?
2) Whether the respondents/defendants prove that the suit itself was not maintainable ?
3) Whether the respondents prove that the learned trial Judge is erred in decreeing the suit partly holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property through sale-
deed dated 29.09.1995 ?
4) What order or decree ?
and on re-appreciation of the evidence, answered point No.1 in the negative, point No.2 partly in the affirmative and point No.3 in the affirmative (wrongly typed as negative) and consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and allowed the cross objection filed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff is before this Court.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017
11. On 06.01.2022, this Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law :-
"Whether the trial Court and the first appellate Court committed an error in failing to appreciate that, in the absence of pleadings and evidence in accordance with law, the defendants had not establish that the suit schedule property was dedicated for the purpose of usage as a burial ground ?"
12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submitted that though the Trial Court had granted the relief of declaration of title accepting the evidence of the plaintiff in the nature of deed of sale produced at Ex.P.5, erred in not granting the relief of possession and injunction. He submits the plaintiff had produced the documents in the nature of Ex.P10 evidencing grant of land originally made in the name of one Murigeppanavar Gurubasappanavar Hosmath on 14.11.1959 who had executed a Will in favour of one Gundayya Shivayya Gachinmath. The property was inherited by his daughters who had relinquished their rights in the said property in favour of one Mahantayya
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 Panchayya Hosmath as evidenced in Ex.P.13. He submits that the said Mahantayya Panchayya Hosamath had retained 18 acres of land of which he had sold 8 acres of land in favour of plaintiff in terms of deed of sale dated 29.09.1995 produced at Ex.P.5. He submits thus the plaintiff had produced documents of title of himself as well as of his predecessor in title. It is further submission that defendants on the other hand except producing Ex.D1 did not produced any evidence to show existence of grave yard and in the absence of any acceptable material evidence produced by the defendants, the Trial Court was in error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession and enjoyment.
13. It is further submission that the First Appellate Court further erred in dismissing the suit in its entirety while allowing cross-objection filed by the defendants. In that, he submits in the light of availability of registered deed of sale at Ex.P.5 supported by Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.13 the First Appellate Court ought not to have dismissed the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 suit reversing the finding arrived at by the Trial Court on issue of title. He submits that both Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the plaintiff regarding his possession erroneously relying upon incorrect report of the Commissioner. He submits that the entire extent of land which had been purchased by the plaintiff was 08 acres of which he had sold four portions in favour of different persons and had retained 04 acres of land. Merely because, Commissioner had reported existence of about 22 tombs, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court misconstrued the evidence produced by the plaintiff regarding his possession which has resulted injustice and prejudiced the plaintiff. He submits plaintiff having established his title and possession of the property, it was incumbent on the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court to call upon the defendants to prove their title and possession over the property that not having been done substantial, question of law requires to be answered in favour of the plaintiff.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that plaintiff has come before the Court seeking substantial relief of declaration and possession. It was therefore incumbent upon the plaintiff to have produced cogent material evidence to establish his title and possession. Merely, because the plaintiff produced a deed of sale dated 29.09.1995 as per Ex.P.5 without corresponding records pertaining to title deed of his predecessor in title, plaintiff would not get valid title in respect of the suit schedule property. He submits though the Trial Court had granted the relief of declaration, upon the cross-objection filed by defendants, the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the cross-objection and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in its entirety.
15. He submits that the substantial question of law farmed by this Court would not arise for consideration as it was for the plaintiff to have proved his title and possession. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
16. Heard. Perused the records.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017
17. It is settled law that in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff could succeed only on the strength of his own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus irrespective of the question whether the defendant proved his case or not. Even if the title set-up by the defendant is found against him, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff's own title, the plaintiff must be non suited [Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others1].
18. It is the case of the plaintiff that originally the property measuring about 19 acres was granted in favour of one Murigeppanavar Gurubasappanavar Hosmath on 04.11.1959. In this regard, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.10 which is certified copy of the revenue entry. Similarly, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.13 is yet again the certified copy of the revenue entry reflecting the name of one Mahantayya Panchayya Hosamath. Based on these 1 (2014) 2 SCC 269
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 two documents, the plaintiff claims that his predecessors- in-title were the owners of the property. It is further contended that by a Will said Murigeppanavar Gurubasappanavar bequeathed the property in favour of one Gundayya Shivayya Gachinmath, which was succeeded by his two daughters, and who purportedly relinquished their right in favour of Mahantayya Panchayya Hosmanth. Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.15 are the mutation register extracts filed in justification of this claim. No primary evidence in the nature of grant order, if any, in favour said Murigeppanavar Gurubasappanavar Hosmath or the alleged Will or the deed of relinquishment in favour of Mahantayya Panchayya Hosamath purportedly executed by daughters of Gundayya Shivayya Gachinmath as claimed are produced.
19. Necessary, at this juncture to refer to the concurrent findings and the conclusion arrived at by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on the evidence of the Court Commissioner. The Court
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 Commissioner upon his visits, inspection and report has brought on record existence of as many as 28 tombs on the suit schedule property. The evidence of the Court Commissioner has not been discredited by the plaintiff. Plaintiff himself has admitted existence of tombs in the suit schedule property.
20. Ex.P.6 is another document which is an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner upon the application filed by the plaintiff seeking change of land from agriculture to non-agriculture. In the said order the Assistant Commissioner having visited the spot has found existence of tomb and he has also referred to the earlier records in which the said property has been shown as being used for burial of dead bodies belonging to veershaiva community. The said order of the Court Commissioner was put to challenge by the plaintiff by filing an appeal unsuccessfully before the Divisional Commissioner, thereafter before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and before this Court. The order of the Assistant
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 Commissioner produced at Ex.P.6 has thus attained finality. Thus, the evidence in the nature of Commissioner's report Ex.P.6 and the admission of the plaintiff himself would establish the existence of grave yard in the suit land.
21. That being so, the claim of the plaintiff of his title over the suit schedule property based on Ex.P.5 - deed of sale dated 29.09.1995 cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as his purported vendors, predecessors-in-title themselves did not have any title or possession over the property. Mere entries in the revenue records would not create any right, title and interest in the immovable property. In the absence of legally acceptable material evidence regarding the title of the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff, plaintiff cannot derive any benefit from the purported revenue entries.
22. Though the Trial Court had found plaintiff to be the owner of the property based on registered sale-deed, as rightly taken note of by the First Appellate Court, in the
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 absence of plaintiff producing any cogent, material evidence with regard to his vendors-predecessors-in-title having any share, right or title interest, the First Appellate Court, in the considered opinion of this Court rightly allowed the cross-objection filed by the defendants, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in its entirety.
23. Since, the plaintiff himself by way of incorporating para 8(a) of the plaint had admitted he being out of possession, and in the light of the availability of the evidence with regard to existence of the grave and tombs over 100 years, plaintiff claim for possession and injunction was also rightly declined.
24. In the light of the aforesaid factual and legal aspects of the matter, the contentions urged insisting the defendants to produce the evidence of their title and possession over the suit schedule property cannot be countenanced. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered. Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2017 passed in
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8422 RSA No. 200251 of 2017 R.A.No.14/2013 by the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Vijaypura.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT:PK