Bangalore District Court
Mr.Samuel Prem Chandran vs Sri.Pandurangan on 25 August, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALURU.
(CCH74)
Present:
Sri.Yamanappa Bammanagi, B.A., LL.B., (Spl.,
LXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Dated this the 25th day of August 2020.
O.S. No.25487/2014
Plaintiff : Mr.Samuel Prem Chandran,
S/o. Late Sri Francis & Late Miriam Srikala,
Age: 28 years, r/at No.2,
Gover Road Cross,
Cox Town, Bangalore560 005.
(By Sri. M.D.Raghunath, Adv.)
V/s
Defendant : Sri.Pandurangan,
S/o. Sri. M. Ramadass,
Major, r/at No.2/1,
Gover Road Cross,
Cox Town, Bangalore560 005.
(By Sri. V.K.Krishnamurthy, Adv.)
21.03.2014
Date of Institution of the suit
2 O.S. No.25487/2014
Nature of the (Suit or pro
note, suit for declaration
and possession, suit for Permanent Injunction
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
recording of the Evidence. 20.07.2017
Date on which the Judgment
25082020
was pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 06 05 24
(Yamanappa Bammanagi)
73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
(CCH74), Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, restraining him from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case: It is specific case of the plaintiff that, originally suit schedule property was belongs to one Smt.Miriam Srikala and 3 O.S. No.25487/2014 was in possession and enjoyment of her by virtue of registered sale deed dt.27.02.2002, and said Smt.Miriam Srikala died on 16.08.2010, leaving behind her son plaintiff and daughter Ms.Diana Supriya, who had succeeded to the suit schedule property as her legal heirs and her husband per deceased her, the plaintiff's sister is not residing in India, as such not made a party to the suit. Katha stands in the name of the plaintiff. Further contended in the plaint that, suit schedule property is the residential constructed property and same is separated by compound wall with neighbouring properties. The defendant has acquired major portion of No.2, Gover Road Cross, Cox town, Bangalore05, later on re numbered as No.2/1, by virtue of settlement deed dt.07.08.1958, plaintiff's and defendant's properties are abutting to each other. However, the compound wall, eastern wall in between plaintiff and defendant's properties, which is belongs to plaintiff only. The defendant has no any right, 4 O.S. No.25487/2014 interest over the plaintiff's property including the compound wall. Such being the fact, on 18.04.2014 the defendant, all of a sudden, has started demolishing the compound wall situated in between both properties of plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff objected for the same, and lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police, but police have not taken any action, directed the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. Thus, the plaintiff is before this court for the relief sought in the plaint.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons served on the defendant, the defendant appeared through counsel and filed his written statement, stating that, the defendant's father Late.Muniswamy has purchased site with construction under registered sale deed, formed in Sy.No.9, situated Kayamgutta, Doddigunta village, civil and military station, Bangalore. Thereafter, the father of the defendant has settled the portion of the above mentioned property between his sons by name 5 O.S. No.25487/2014 Ramadas under registered settlement deed dt.07.08.1958 and executed registered Will dt.07.08.1958, bequeathing a portion of the said property to the defendant by appointing Rajamma as minor guardian of defendant since said Rajamma is mother of the defendant. Thus, the defendant is an absolute owner in possession of the above said property.
So, the defendant and his brother M.Ramadas have applied for the bifurcation of the property as per their share as per the settlement deed dt.07.08.1958 and as per the Will dt.07.08.1958. Thereafter, khatha has been registered separately in their individual names in respect of their portion of the property as mentioned above. Accordingly, Bangalore City Corporation had issued endorsement reference No. KTR/172/6364, dt.07.06.1963. After death of M.Ramadas his wife Smt.Janakamma and his children had sold rear portion of his property to one Sri K.S.Palanichiamy under registered sale deed dt.06.09.1979, thereafter, said 6 O.S. No.25487/2014 Smt.Janakamma and his children has sold the front portion of their property facing towards Gover Road Cross i.e., suit schedule property to Mohammed Anees and Mohammed Yunus on 19.05.1988 under registered sale deed. The said Mohammed Yunus has sold the property to one Mohammed Tajuddin on 31.05.1995 under registered sale deed and rectified by the deed dt.12.02.2002. Thus, the khatha in respect of property shown in written statement stands in the name of the defendant and defendant paying tax to the competent authority in respect of property shown in the written statement and further the defendant denied the averment made in the plaint at para 3 as it is not within his knowledge. Further it is contended that, the plaintiff's sister is not made as a party to the suit, thus the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Further the defendant has contended that, the plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint that suit property and 7 O.S. No.25487/2014 defendant's property has been separated by compound wall and thus the plaintiff has filed this suit with suppression of material facts and he has given distorted facts which disentitle him to have a equitable relief of intention as he has approached the court with unclean hands. Further he denied by contending that, defendant has no knowledge about the background of the entire property which was earlier owned by Late.Muniswamy s/o. Muniramaiah, who is none other than the father of this defendant and denied the contents of para 7 of the plaint. Further the defendant contended that, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No.2/1, Gover Road Cross, Cox town, Bangalore05. With this the defendant contended that, there is no cause of action to file this suit and suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed.
8 O.S. No.25487/2014
5. On pleadings of the parties, my learned Predecessor has framed the following: ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of suit?
2. Whether plaintiff proves alleged interference?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of Permanent Injunction ?
4. What order or decree?
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and PW1 was crossexamined by the learned counsel for the defendant and defendant is examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9 marked during the cross examination of PW1.
9 O.S. No.25487/2014
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant submitted written argument and oral argument.
8. I have perused oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff & defendant and material placed before the court and considered the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant.
9. My answer to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Negative, Issue No.2: In the Negative, Issue No.3: In the Negative, Issue No.4: As per the final order, for the following: REASONS
10. ISSUE No.1: In order to prove his case the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.9. PW1 examined by filing affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, reiterating the averments of the plaint. PW1 deposed that, he is the absolute owner and in possession 10 O.S. No.25487/2014 of the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dt.27.02.2002, which is marked at Ex.P.1 and further he deposed that, the property of the defendant is situated adjoining to the suit schedule property and there is a compound wall in between the property of plaintiff and defendant and said compound wall is belongs to plaintiff. Further Ex.P.2 original registered sale deed dt.01.02.1999 and Ex.P.3 original sale deed dt.31.03.1995 and original sale deed dt.18.05.1988, which is marked at Ex.P.4 and further the plaintiff produced settlement deed dt.07.08.1958, which is marked at Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 is the site plan rough sketch and Ex.P.7 is the acknowledgment issued by the Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bangalore for having received the complaint, Ex.P.8 is the GPA dt.17.02.2012 and Ex.P.9 is the bifurcation deed.
11. The entire case of the plaintiff is that, suit schedule property was originally belonging to his mother Smt.Miriam Srikala and was in her possession till her death 11 O.S. No.25487/2014 and after her death the plaintiff and his sister have succeeded to the suit schedule property as the legal heirs of their mother, since the plaintiff's father predeceased to his mother and suit schedule property is the residential constructed property and same is separated from the property of the defendant by compound wall and compound wall belonging to plaintiff.
12. I have perused Ex.P.1 original registered sale deed, at page No.13, which clearly reflects that, there is no compound wall, since para 13 of the Ex.P.1 original sale deed, has been removed and PW1 admitted that, there is no compound wall. Under such circumstances, the question before the court is, as to whether the oral evidence of plaintiff contrary to the documents under which the plaintiff's mother had acquired the suit schedule property can be relied or admissible.
12 O.S. No.25487/2014
I have perused Ex.P.1 para 13, it reflects that, the compound wall has been removed from the document. It is clearly proved by the registered document that there is no compound wall in the suit schedule property.
13. On perusal of the entire case of the plaintiff and entire defence of the defendant, it is clear that, there is no dispute regarding the possession and title of their respective properties. Only dispute is with regard to compound wall which is situated in between the properties of plaintiff and defendant. The claim of the plaintiff is that, the defendant has no right, interest over the compound wall to fix the gate of his house, since the compound wall is situated within the property belonging to plaintiff. But the original registered sale deed under which the plaintiff's ancestor i.e., mother of the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property, discloses no compound wall. When title deed itself clearly shows that there is no compound wall. Under such 13 O.S. No.25487/2014 circumstances, the equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted. Because the registered sale deed Ex.P.1 has got strong presumptive value U/sec.17 of Indian Registration Act. So, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise his voice against his own document which affects the entire transaction involved in the registered document. Further the plaintiff's version cannot be accepted as it is hit by Sec.91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sec.92 reads thus: "Sec.92 exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.when the terms of any such contract, grant or other dispossession of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced into the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to the such document or their representative in interest for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms;
14 O.S. No.25487/2014Proviso (1),Any fact maybe proved which would invalidate any document or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of capacity in any contracting party. [want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact or law:
Proviso(2) The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document:
Proviso (3)-The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved: Proviso (4)- The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, 15 O.S. No.25487/2014 except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of document:
Proviso(5)Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract;
Proviso(6)-Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts."
14. Further the learned counsel for the plaintiff brought the notice of this court on Ex.D.8, produced by the defendant, that, Ex.D.8 clearly exhibits the compound wall in 16 O.S. No.25487/2014 between the suit property and property belongs to defendant. Now the question is when original title deed Ex.P.1 does not discloses the existence of the compound wall in the suit schedule property and PW1 clearly admitted in his cross examination that there is no compound wall and Ex.D.8 discloses the mark of compound wall. Ex.D.8 also registered document registered along with settlement deed. So, these two registered documents contradicting to each other. Both Ex.D.8 and Ex.P.1 are registered document contradicting over the existence of compound wall in the suit schedule property, which creates a clear cut cloud over the title and possession of the plaintiff over the compound wall. Ex.P.1 is the sale deed the contents of which is presumed to be genuine U/Sec.17 of the Registration Act. Ofcourse, Ex.D.8 also registered document, but it is connected with Ex.P.7 Will. So, Ex.P.1 is a registered sale deed under which the plaintiff's mother had acquired suit schedule property and same is to be 17 O.S. No.25487/2014 reliable and admissible, since entire case of the plaintiff is on the basis of Ex.P.1.
15. Further the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that, when plaintiff's case is depend upon Ex.P.1 original registered sale deed, under which the plaintiff's mother had acquired the suit schedule property and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, under such circumstances, the document original sale deed Ex.P.1 does not discloses the existence of the very wall in question in the suit schedule property, then Court cannot grant a equitable relief of injunction in respect of the property which is not in possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. Under such circumstances, what is the left open for the plaintiff is to file suit for declaration in respect of wall alleged to be in the suit schedule property. On this count, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
18 O.S. No.25487/2014
16. The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that, when Ex.D.8 discloses the existence of wall, then plaintiff is entitle for the relief of injunction. I have considered the argument of the both the learned counsel for the parties, on considering the same the question arise as to when the title deed itself does not discloses the existence of the property i.e., compound wall, in respect of which plaintiff sought for the relief of injunction, is entitle for the relief of injunction in respect of property which is not in existence in the suit schedule property.
17. It is settled law that, the registered sale deed have got the presumptive value u/sec.17 of the Indian Registration Act that, the contention of registered document is presumed to be genuine. Under such circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff does not holds good. 19 O.S. No.25487/2014
18. Further it is pertinent to note here the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant here that, as per Ex.P.1, original sale deed produced by the plaintiff, under which the plaintiff's mother had acquired the suit schedule property and after death of his mother plaintiff and his sister had succeeded to the schedule property, the measurement of the suit schedule property towards east to west: 30 feet. So there is a 4 feet road as admitted by the PW1 in his crossexamination, after deducting 4 feet from 30 feet measurement of the suit schedule property towards east to west: the measurement of the suit schedule property would not remained as 30 feet as claimed by the plaintiff. So, the claim of the plaintiff as per Ex.P.1 is totally false and excessive to what the plaintiff is entitle for.
Now it is relevant to appreciate the crossexamination of PW1. I have carefully perused crossexamination of PW1 and found that, the plaintiff has admitted that in Ex.P.1 there 20 O.S. No.25487/2014 is no mention about the existence of compound wall in the suit schedule property. The relevant crossexamination of PW1 dt.25.01.2019 after two line from top, which reads thus: "It is true that, there is mention in Ex.P.1 that, there is no compound. There is a passage towards western side of suit schedule property. I do not know the measurement of said passage. It is true that, measurement of passage is 4 feet. The total measurement of suit property towards northern side is 30 feet. I have constructed over the suit property on portion of 30 feet and I have not leave 4 feet for passage."
On appreciation of the evidence of plaintiff extracted supra, it is clear that, there is no compound wall in the suit property. Further it is clear that, when plaintiff has constructed building over the entire extent of suit property and there is a passage measuring 4 feet, without leaving that 21 O.S. No.25487/2014 4 feet passage the plaintiff has constructed over the suit property, then it is clear that, there is no compound wall in the suit schedule property, which is corroborated to the sale deed Ex.P.1 on which the plaintiff is relied on.
Further the plaintiff has admitted the crossexamination that, there is no compound wall and no damage was caused to the compound wall, as it could be seen from the cross examination of PW1 dt.25.01.2019 at 2 nd page after fifth line from top which reads thus: "Ex.D5 reflects passage which is situated towards north of suit schedule property." Further it is relevant to extract the crossexamination of PW1 dt.21.02.2019 at 2nd page, 2nd line from top, which reads thus: "It is true that, on western side of the suit schedule property, there is a passage which lead to rear portion belongs to Palani Swamy, I am not aware as to I have to leave 22 O.S. No.25487/2014 passage as my mother has excluded from the suit schedule property."
On perusal of the evidence of plaintiff extracted supra, it is clear that, plaintiff has constructed over the suit schedule property without leaving 4 feet land for the passage. Under such circumstances, the contention of the Ex.P.1 that there is no compound wall is genuine. So, the Ex.P.1 itself creates cloud on the rights, title and possession over the compound wall. With this observation, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff failed to prove the possession of compound wall in the suit schedule property. Hence, I answer this issue in the Negative.
19. Issue No.2: The plaintiff has contended in the plaint that, his mother has acquired the suit schedule property under registered sale deed and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are the original registered sale deeds, which clearly shows the flow of title and possession of the suit schedule property in 23 O.S. No.25487/2014 accordance with law. Under such circumstances, the existence of the compound wall in the suit schedule property cannot be questioned, since the existence of the wall clearly established by the document produced by the defendant himself, which is marked at Ex.D.8. Thus, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9 discloses that, the defendant has damaged the compound wall which is situated in the suit schedule property. This clearly shows that, the defendant has interfered and damaged the wall existing in the suit schedule property.
20. Now it is relevant to appreciate Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9, which have been marked in the crossexamination of PW1 on his admission. Now it is relevant to extract crossexamination of PW1, dt.25.01.2019, after 7 th lines from the bottom which reads thus: "The photo now shown to me is reflects open space wherein, the almirah reflects which belongs to defendant. Same is marked as Ex.D.2 and in Ex.D.2 reflects the 24 O.S. No.25487/2014 room which removed is belongs to defendant. As per Ex.D.2 defendant has not demolished my gate. If defendant would have demolish my gate he would have demolished my wall. The photo now shown to me is reflects continuation of the room wall and fixation of the pillar which belongs to defendant. Said photo is marked as Ex.D.3."
On careful appreciation of evidence of plaintiff it is clearly shows that, the plaintiff has admitted that the defendant has not demolished the gate fixed by the plaintiff. Further the evidence of PW1 extracted supra clearly reflects that alleged wall and pillar is belongs to the defendant. Further the plaintiff admitted in the crossexamination after going through the photo produced by the defendant, which is marked at Ex.P.4, that no damage is caused to the compound wall. It is relevant to extract here the crossexamination of 25 O.S. No.25487/2014 PW1 dt.25.01.2019, at 2nd para, after two line from top, which reads thus: "Ex.D.4 reflects no damage to compound wall." So, when it is admitted by the plaintiff that, the defendant has not demolished compound wall, then the defence of the defendant that there is no interference of the defendant and there is no cause of action to file this suit, holds good. So, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties and on admitted fact, clearly shows that, there is no interference of the defendant as the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of alleged wall in the suit schedule property.
21. I have perused Ex.P.1 registered sale deed, it clearly discloses that there is no compound wall. On careful perusal of the Ex.P.1 at para 13, it shows that, the plaintiff has removed the contention of para 13 of Ex.P.1 in order to clear the fact of existence and nonexistence of the compound 26 O.S. No.25487/2014 wall. So, on careful perusal of para 13 of original sale deed Ex.P.1, it is sufficient to hold that, there is no compound wall in the suit schedule property.
22. On the contrary, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.9 clearly shows that, the compound wall is in the property belonging to defendant and defendant has put up a pillar in the compound wall, which is situated in the property of the defendant. So, question of interference of the defendant by damaging the compound wall does not arises as the plaintiff failed to prove that, alleged compound wall is situated in the suit schedule property. Thus, there is no interference by the defendant in the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Hence, I answer this issue in the Negative.
23. Issue No.3: The registered title deed of the plaintiff does not discloses the existence of the compound wall. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 original title deeds does not discloses the existence of the compound wall and further Ex.P.1 clearly 27 O.S. No.25487/2014 shows that there is no compound wall in the suit schedule property. Thus, the documents produced by the plaintiff himself does not discloses the existence of compound wall in the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, mere suit for injunction is not sustainable as held in the decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 in case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others.
The lordship have held in the decision thus:
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 28 O.S. No.25487/2014 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, 29 O.S. No.25487/2014 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.
Where Plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a 30 O.S. No.25487/2014 property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the Defendant a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie.
24. On considering the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties and relying the decision referred above, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff is not entitle for the equitable relief of permanent injunction. Hence I answer issue in the Negative.
25. ISSUE No.4: In view of the findings on issue No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
31 O.S. No.25487/2014(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, directly on computer system, computerized by him, after online correction by me, printout taken by him and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of August 2020).
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH74) SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All the piece and parcel of land together with construction standing thereon of premises bearing No.2, Gover Road Cross, Cox Town, Bangalore560 005, and measuring East to West: 30' and North to South : 49' in all 1470 sq.ft. With PID No.8542 and New PID No.079 W000458, bounded on: East by: Premises No.2/1, Gover Road Cross, West by: 3' passage leading to premises No.2/2, Gover Road Cross, North by: Gover Road Cross, South by: Premises No.2/2, Gover Road Cross.
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH74) 32 O.S. No.25487/2014 ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the plaintiff's side:
PW1 : Mr.Samuel Prem Chandra List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 to 5 : 5 sale deeds Ex.P.6 : Site plan/rough sketch Ex.P.7 : Acknowledgment issued by police Ex.P.8 : GPA Ex.P.9 : Bifurcation deed Ex.P.10, 11 : Photos
List of witness examined for the defendant's side :
DW1 : Panduranga List of documents exhibited for the defendant's side:
Ex.D.1 to D4: Photos
Ex.D.5 : Registered sketch
Ex.D.6 : Settlement deed
Ex.D.7 : Will
Ex.D.8 : Sketch copy
Ex.D.9 : Photo
Ex.D.10 : CC of Sale deed dt.07.01.1939
33 O.S. No.25487/2014
Ex.D.11 : Endorsement issued by ARO
dt.07.06.1963
Ex.D.12 : CC of sale deed dt.06.09.1979 Ex.D.13 : Original khatha certificate Ex.D.14 : Original khatha extracted Ex.D.15 : Computerized tax paid receipt for the year 201920 Ex.D.16 : CD (Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru.(CCH74) 34 O.S. No.25487/2014 35 O.S. No.25487/2014 36 O.S. No.25487/2014 37 O.S. No.25487/2014