Karnataka High Court
M K Kempa Kumar vs M S Viswanath on 31 May, 2012
Author: H.S.Kempanna
Bench: H.S.Kempanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED ThIS ThE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
R.F.A.NO. 1076/2007
BE'IWEEN
M.K.KEMPA KUMAR
S/O LATE M.K.KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.80,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
GOVINDARAJNAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 040
--
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.SHEKAR SHE'ITY &
SRI.A.ANIL KUMAR SHETTY ADVs.)
-
AND
1. M S VISWANATH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS..
A. B.V.SANTHOSH KUMAR
S/O LATE M K KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.79/4-i,
LAKSHMATAH GARDEN,
GOVINDARAJANAGAR,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD.
BANGALORE 560 040
-
2. THE COMMISSIONER
CORPORATION OF CITY
OF BANGALORE
BANGALORE 560 001
- ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.SESHAGIRI RAO- ADV. FOR Ri A,
GRI.G.NAGARAJULU NAIDU ADV. FOR R-2)
-
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 09 22007 PASSED IN OS NO 321/1994 ON THE
FILE OF THE XVI ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, CCH NO.12, DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property except to the extent of 5ft x 125 ft. lying to the western side of the suit property and granting the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the door, windows, openings and the exhaust fans and fume pipes fixed in the walls of defendant No.1 towards the house of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties in this appeal would be referred to by their rankings as they are arrayed in the suit before the trial Court. 3
3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction and Mandatory injunction.
4. Suit schedule property is the property bearing No.79/4 Magadi Main Road, previously known as Laxmaiah Garden, Govindaraj anagar, Corporation Division No.29, Bangalore -- 40 measuring north to south towards east 125' towards west 137', east to west towards north 52' and towards south 43' and the property to be demolished by grant of mandatory injunction measures 3' x 60' shown by letters ABCD in the sketch annexed to the plaint in the property of the defendant bearing No.80, Magadi Main Road, Govindarajanagar, Bangalore -- 40 morefully described in the schedule Annexed to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the "suit schedule property" for short) It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property measuring north to south towards east 125' towards west 137', east to west towards north tv 4 52' and towards south 43'. In the suit schedule property the plaintiff is residing along with his family members and a portion has been let out to the tenants also.
It is his further case that defendant No.1 claiming to be the owner of the property bearing No.80 lying towards west of the plaintiffs house had filed a suit bearing OS No.273/83 for declaration and permanent injunction on the file of the XVIII Addi. City Civil Judge Bangalore City, in respect of vacant land measuring east-west 5' and north-south 125' situated towards eastern side of his property as belonging to him. After contest the said suit came to be dismissed on 2.11.1985 with costs. As against the said judgment and decree, 1st defendant preferred RFA No.174/86 before the High Court of Karnataka and the same also came to be dismissed on 4.7.1991. Thus, the judgment and decree passed in OS 273/83 is conclusive and binding on defendant No.1. It is his further case that the property measuring 5' x 125' lying to the west of the suit property is the plaintiffs property and 1st 5 defendant's property only measures 18' x 125'. There are three fruit bearing coconut trees in his property standing on the western side of the plaintiffs house.
It is also his case that after the dismissal of the suit bearing OS 273/83 and RFA 174/86, defendant No.1 started nursing grudge against the plaintiff. In order to harass and defeat the rights of the plaintiff for free passage of air and light, the first defendant started putting up construction in a portion of the property lying towards the north in such a manner without leaving any set backs as required under the building bylaws of the second defendant. He has utilised the entire property for construction and besides the same, he has let out the said building to a non-vegetarian hotel towards the east facing the schedule property. He has opened three big windows measuring 2½ft. x 3 ft. and two openings for installing exhaust fans and for insertion of pipes for expelling fumes. It is also his case that either for construction of the building or for opening the windows as stated above and letting out to non-vegetarian hotel, the first respondent has not 6 obtained any licence. In spite of his protest, illegal constructions were continued. Be sides this, projections have been erected in such a manner that if projections are to come within the property of the plaintiff, the said projections and illegal constructions would affect his uninterrupted rights for free passage of light and air to his property. It is his further case on account of installation of exhaust fans and fume pipes they emanate smell and fumes. The fumes coming out from the exhaust fans and pipes directly affect the fruit bearing coconut trees resulting in lesser yield from the trees. Further, the fumes also cause nuisance and annoyance for the peaceful living of the plaintiff. The said openings are deliberately made by the first defendant in order to cause inconvenience to the plaintiff. It is his further case that all the illegal activities of the first defendant started on 2.12.2003. Immediately he lodged a complaint to the second respondent highlighting all the defects and bringing to the notice of the second respondent his rights and legal proceedings. Pursuant to the same, on 7.12.1993 he 7 furnished relevant documents so as to enable the second respondent to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and bylaws framed thereunder. In spite of the same, the 211(1 defendant did not take any action and on the other hand the official of the 2M defendant colluded with the ia defendant and encouraged him to commit these ifiegal activities. Thereafter, he caused a lawyer notice dated 27.12.93. Despite the same, the 1st defendant proceeded with his fflegal actMties and completed the construction without leaving the required set backs. Therefore, according to him the building constructed in the space measuring 3x6O' In the property of the defendant situated on the western side of the suit schedule property, is liable to be demolished as the same is Illegal, unauthorised and affects the easementazy rights of the plaintiff for free passage of light and air to his property and as the said construction is also ifiegall, unauthorised and In contravention of the building by-laws of the 8 Corporation of City of Bangalore. Accordingly, he sought for the reliefs as prayed for.
After service of notice, the defendants appeared through their respective counsels. However, the second respondent did not file any statement of objections. The first defendant contested the suit by filing his statement of objections.
Defendant No.1 in his statement of objections interalia among other things contended that it is correct to state that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property but he has not described the schedule correctly and schedule is incorrectly mentioned. It is his case there is 7 feet passage i.e., 5 feet property towards the west of the plaintiff and 2 feet on the eastern side of his property. He further contended that he is the owner of the property bearing No.80 situated in S.No.29, measuring 18x125 feet having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 02.07.70 from on K.G.Suryanarayanarao. Since the date of purchase, he is in possession and 9 enjoyment of the same by putting up residential and non-residential premises.
He has further stated that he had filed the suit in O.S.273/83 and the said suit was dismissed and being aggrieved by the said order, he preferred RFA NO.174/86 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. It is false to state towards western side of the suit property, the property of the defendant No.1 is situated. There is 2 feet passage towards eastern side of the property of the defendant No.1 which runs from north to south.
Insofar as the allegation that he is labouring grudge against the plaintiff after the disposal of the suit and the RFA are not true and correct and further he has put up building without leaving set back are all false. He has further stated that he has not let out the premises to run a non-vegetarian hotel but contended that the construction of the same was a new one. It is his case that he has kept the windows to suit his convenience and he has constructed the building 10 within his property. The allegation that he has deliberately let out the premises to run a non- vegetarian hotel are all false and he also stated that it is false to contend that he has put up some projected portion in his property. According to him he has every right to enjoy his property as he is the absolute owner and the construction of the building is according to his choice and nobody can prevent the construction of the building which is more than 10 years and question of projection therefore, does not arise at all. He further contended that the plaintiff has no right to file the suit as there is a vacant space which runs from north to south having a free passage of 7 ft. which does not belong to either of the parties. He has also denied all other allegations made by the plaintiff in the written statement which has not been specifically traversed. He has further stated that he has no knowledge about the plaintiff having given complaint against him to the Corporation. However, he has stated that the Corporation officials has inspected the premises of both the plaintiff and the defendant, they had measured the Ii properties and had drawn up the mahazar. The allegations that the Officials of the Corporation have colluded with him are all false. All other allegations made are all false and suit itself is devoid of merits and sought for dismissal of the same.
On the basis of the above pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he Is the absolute owner In possession of the suit schedule property as described In the plaint schedule?
2. Whether the plaintfff prove that the construction begun by the 1 defendant towards the north of the plaint schedule property Is unauthorlsed?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the proposed construction by the Pt defendant would defeat the rights of the plalntlffforfree passage of air and light as alleged In the plainO 12
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the construction by the Jst defendant would cause nuisance to the plaintiff and the members of his family. as alleged in the pam 4 of the plaint?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as prayed for?
6. What Decree or Order?
The plaintiff in support of his case got himself examined as PW1, produced 8 documents which came to be marked as exhibits P1 to P8.
The defendant in support of their case got himself examined as DW 1. Apart from the same the court commissioner who had been appointed has been examined as DW2. He has been produced in all 22 documents which came to be marked as exhibits Dl to D22.
The trial court on hearing the counsels for the respective parties and on going through the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the plaintiff 13 is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property as described in the plaint, but not the owner in possession of 5ft x 125 ft. open area lying towards the western side of his house. It further held that he has failed to prove that the construction began by the first respondent towards the northern side of the schedule property is unauthorised. It further held that the plaintiff has proved that the proposed construction by defendant No.1 is to defeat the rights of the plaintiff for free passage of air and light and also held that he has proved that the construction by the first defendant would cause nuisance to the plaintiff and the members of his family and he is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction partly. Accordingly, by its judgment and decree dated 9.2.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting permanent injunction. However, it restricted the said relief in respect of the schedule property except to the extent of 5 ft. x 125 ft. towards western side of the suit property and also granted the relief of mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the door, 14 windows, openings. exhaust fans with fume pipes fixed in the first defendant's wall towards the suit schedule property.
It is the correctness and legality of the said judgement and decree that has been assailed by the first defendant in this appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.1 assailing the impugned judgment and decree contended in the absence of a suit for declaration for easementry rights the trial Court has erred in granting mandatory injunction as indicated in its order. He further contended that it has also erred in granting the reliefs without there being any prayer. He further contended that the relief of mandatory injunction should have been filed within three years from the date of opening the window and as the same has not been done, the suit is not maintainable. He also contended that the plaintiff no where either in his pleadings or in the evidence has pleaded that the defendant has interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of his property and 15 hence, the trial Court ought not to have granted the relief of permanent injunction. He further contended that the finding in RFA 174/86 will have no bearing to hold against the appellant as the issues in the said appeal and the issues in the present appeal have no nexus with each other inasmuch as they being not identical. In this connection he submitted that in the suit filed by him he had sought for only the relief of permanent injunction which has been rejected. As the issues in the present suit are different than the one which has been raised and decided in the suit filed by him will have no bearing at all and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree granting the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be sustained. He also further contended that insofar as the alleged construction according to the plaintiff has been made in violation of the Municipal Corporation Act, the proper authority to take action is the second defendant and in this suit the plaintiff could not have sought for any relief. Therefore, the trial Court erred in entertaining the suit when the jurisdiction is barred by 16 the special statute. He also contended that the trial Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in granting the relief without there being any pleadings and evidence on record. Further he also contended that in the absence of cross appeal by the plaintiff this court cannot grant any relief and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court cannot be sustained and it be set aside by allowing the appeal. In support Of his submission the learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 1994(6) SCC 572; AIR 1966 Mys.74; AIR 1953 SC 235; ILR 2006 KAR 3122.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff while supporting the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court contended that as the suit was not based on the premise of easementr right, the trial Court has not committed any error in granting the relief of mandatory inj unction inasmuch as it has directed only to close the windows and the outlets in which the pipes and exhaust fans have been fixed. Insofar as the 17 contention that the court has granted the relief without there being a prayer, he contended this Court In exercise of its power conferred under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, despite there being no appeal preferred, can grant the relief In the Interest of Justice If the material available on record Justify the same. In this connection he submitted that this Court in RFA 174/86 has given a finding that there is no space between the two properties of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The said finding has not been challenged. Thereafter, he filed another suit seeking for permanent Injunction despite the fact that his earlier suit filed for declaration has been dismissed which is affirmed In RFA 174/86 and the said suit also came to be dismissed which ultimately came to be affirmed by this Court In RF'A 66/2003. SInce the findings of this court In the aforementioned RFAs I.e. 174/86 and 66/03 clearly go to show that there is no space In between the properties of the plaintiff and the first defendant, the claim of the first defendant that there is a passage measuring 5ft x 125ft, as vehemently claimed by him, 18 has no legs to stand. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in granting the relief. However, it has erred in holding that the plaintiff has not established his claim in respect of 5 ft x 125 ft. in the suit schedule property contra to the material available on record and therefore, in exercise of the power u/o.4 1 Rule 33 of CPC, this Court can grant the relief. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
In support of his contentions he relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1966 SC 735: AIR 1963 SC 1516; 1969(1) 5CC 813; 1988 (SC) 54; (1993) 2 SC 639:
1998 (SC) 3118.
7. Taking the rival contentions the evidence and the documents on record, the points that arise for consideration are -
i) Whether the plaintiff has proved that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction in respect of the portion of 19 ABCD marked in the sketch constructed in the property of the first defendant?
iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for any interference?
8. Re. Point No.1 :-
It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. He has based his claim on the basis of Ex.P1 under which he has got the suit schedule property to his share from his brother Chandrashekaraiah. No doubt in the said Ex.P 1, the western portion of the suit schedule property is shown as vacant land. The plaintiff in his evidence has also stated to that effect. But, the real question is whether this vacant land exists between the two properties. According to the first defendant, he is the owner of the adjacent site bearing No.18 measuring 18 ft. x 125 ft. It is his case that he has purchased the property from one K.G.Suryanarayana Rao. According to him his predecessor in title when he purchased the property it 20 was measuring 20 ft. x 125 ft. and when he sold the same to him he left 2 ft. and then sold the property infavour of him thereby 2 ft. has been left to the eastern side of his property. It is also his case that an extent of 5 ft. x 125 ft., the vacant space, had been left as a free passage. Thus, in all 7 ft. x 125 ft. has been left as free passage in between the two properties. The plaintiff without there being exclusive right over the said property is claiming that he is the owner and nobody including him should interfere with the possession of the same. It is pertinent to note in respect of the very same disputed property, the first defendant had preferred O.S.No.273/1983 seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the present plaintiff. The said suit came to be dismissed. As against the same he preferred RFA No.174/86 before this Court. This Court in the said appeal appointed a court commissioner. Commissioner's report was received by this Court. This Court in the said RF'A has identified the property of the appellant as 'A' property. The first respondent/plaintiff as 'B' 21 property and the disputed property i.e. 5ft. x 125 ft. between the two properties as 'C' property. While appreciating the material on record this Court has given a clear finding on the basis of the report of the Commissioner and the documents on record that there exists no property as described as 'C' measuring to an extent of 5 ft. x 125 ft. This finding of this Court has not been challenged. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that he had filed a suit for declaration and it has been dismissed. Now the present plaintiff has come out seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the very same property wherein he has failed to show/prove that he is the owner to that extent of the property measuring 5' x 125' ft. Further appellant/defendant No.1 after the disposal of RFA No.174/86, preferred O.S.NO.7386/99 before the Civil Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property marked as ABCD in the schedule appended to the plaint of the said suit. The extent given in the said suit was 7 ft. x 125 ft. The extent in this suit is also not consistent with the suit he has filed earlier. However, the suit preferred by the appellant/defendant NO.1 also came to be dismissed and the appeal RFA 66/2003 preferred against the said judgment and decree also came to be dismissed affirming the findings of the trial court. These findings of this Court in the two appeals would clearly and clinchingly establish that there is no space measuring to an extent of 5 x 125 ft. located in between the two properties of the plaintiff and defendant NO.1. Though, as already pointed out, it was vehemently contended that the findings of the said suits and the appeals have no bearing or direct nexus with the present issues in the present suit, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff and the first defendant in the said suits and the RFAs are one and the same and the subject matter involved are also one and the same. In view of the specific finding of this Court that there is no vacant space lying in between the properties of the plaintiff and the defendant, it has to be held that the plaintiff is in enjoyment of the suit schedule property to the exclusion of the others. Therefore, in my view, he 23 would be entitled to the relief of injunction to the extent of suit schedule property mentioned in part A of the schedule.
The decisions of the Apex Court and this court relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in this connection having regard to the factual position which has been adverted to above will have no bearing and therefore, they have not been dwelled upon.
9. Re. Point No.2 :-
Coming to the question of illegal construction put up by the first defendant in the property ABCD in the sketch, the averments in the plaint itself shows that the said construction itself has been made by the appellant/defendant in his property. The evidence and the documents on record clearly go to show that the defendant has put up his construction in the property which is in his possession. Therefore, the trial Court, as rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant/first defendant, could not have granted mandatory injunction as indicated in its order.
L 24 Therefore, from the evidence and the documents on record, I am of the view that the order granting the relief of mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the openings made cannot be sustained. As the construction made by the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff has no connection with the property of the plaintiff, no relief could have been granted against him. Therefore, to that extent the appellant/defendant No.1 has to succeed.
10. Though the learned counsels canvassed vehemently with regard to the maintainability of the suit in respect of granting mandatory injunction, in view of the fact that I have held against the plaintiff the same does not require a deep dwelling of the issues and the citations relied by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The trial Court, as already indicated, has granted the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property except to the extent of 5' x 125' ft. lying to the western side of the 25 suit property. I have already indicated there is no space of 5 ft x 125 ft. between the two properties in view of the findings recorded by this court in RFA. 174/86.
12. The next question that dwells upon for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in toto in respect of the suit schedule property?
It was strongly canvassed before me by the counsel for the appellant, in the absence of any cross appeal by the plaintiff no relief can be granted in his favour.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 contended that this court in exercise of power conferred under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, can grant the relief which has been denied to the party if the material on record justify the same in the ends of justice.
26The Apex Court in the case of Mahant Dhangir and another Vs.Shri Madan Mohan and others - AIR 1988 SC 54 has held as follows :-
(C) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908). 0.41, Rr.33, 22-
Powers of appellate Court - Objection against decree-Powers under Rules 33 and 22 -- Mutual Scope- Constraints on power under R.33 stated.
Rule 22 and R.33 are not mutually exclusive. They are closely related with each other, if objection cannot be urged under R.22 against co-respondent, R.33 could take over and come to the rescue of the objector. The sweep of the power under R.33 is wide enough to determine any question not only between the appellant and respondent, but also between respondent and co-respondents. The Appellate Court could pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed in the circumstances of the case. The appellate Court could also pass such other decree or order as the case may require. the words "as the case may require" used in R.33 of 0.41 have been put in wide terms to enable the Appellate Court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of justice. The only constraint on the power are 27 these: That the parties before the lower Court should be there before the appellate Court. The question raised must properly arise out of the judgment qf the lower Court. if these two requirements are there, the appellate court could consider any objection against any part of the judgment or decree of the lower Court. It may be urged by any party to the appeal.
At para 15 it has observed as follows :-
15. The appellate court could also pass such other decree or order as the case may require. The words " as the case may require" used in R.33 of 0.41 have been put in wide terms to enable the appellate court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of justice. What then should be the constraint? We do not find many. We are not giving any liberal interpretation. The rule itsef is liberal enough. The only constraints that we could see may be these: That the parties before the lower court should be there before the appellate court. The question raised must properly arise out of judge ment of the lower court, if these two requirements are there, the appellate court could consider any objection against any part of thejudgement or decree of the lower court. It may be urged by any party 28 to the appeal. It is true that the power of the appellate court under R.33 is discretionary. But it is a proper exercise ofjudicial discretion to determine all questions urged in order to render complete justice between the parties. The court should not refuse to exercise that discretion on mere technicalities.
Similarly, the Apex Court in the decision reported in Bihar Supply Syndicate Vs. Asiatic Navigation and others and United Salt Works and Industries ltd., Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others - (1993) 2 SCC 639 Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Or.41 Rr.33 and 22 - Scope and applicability - Ingredients of R.33 - Power of appellate court to pass decree or order which subordinate court ought to have passed -- Plaintiffs suit for recovery qf market value of goods lost in carriage by ship decreed by trial court againstfour defendants
- Findings on issues against defendant 3 given without any discussion thereon -- Cross- objections filed by defendant 3 in appeal filed by defendant 4 before High Court - Held, High Court's view that the cross-objections were not covered by R.22 correct -- But having 29 regard to the fact that defendartt3 was only a seller of the goods having no role In actual carriage of the goods. High Court erred In reJhslng to grant relief under R.33 The Apex Court at pans 27.28,29 have extensively dealt with the power of the Appellate Court In granting the relief u/o.41 RIfle 33 of IPC.
Therefore, It Is needless for me to say Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC empowers this Court to grant the relief if situation warrants and further if the evidence on record Justify the same as It Is undisputed that the appeal Is a continuous proceeding of the original proceeding.
14. In this case as already held the plaintiff/respondent has contended that he Is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. This court In RFA No.174/86 has given a clear finding that therelsnospaceof5ft.x 1251 betweenthetwo properties of the plaintiff and the defendant. In that 30 view of the matter, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief of permanent injunction to the extent that has been denied to him by the court below. Accordingly, the finding of the trial Court to the extent observed above cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
15. Re.Point No.3 :-
In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court cannot be sustained and calls for interference to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The judgment and decree of the trial Court
granting mandatory injunction is set aside;
iii) The suit of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property in toto is decreed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/fl.
JUDGE rs