Karnataka High Court
Pralhad And Ors vs Channavva And Anr on 19 July, 2012
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
Dated this the 19th day of July 2012
Before
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
R.S.A NO.66/1999
C/W
H.R.R.P NO.182/2001
IN R.S.A NO.66/1999:
Between:
1. Sri. Pralhad
S/o. Gundu Belgaonkar,
Major, R/at No.1626/M,
Potnis Galli, Dharwad.
2. Sri. Hanamanth
S/o. Gundu Belgaonkar,
Major, R/at No.1626/M,
Potnis Galli, Dharwad.
3. Smt. Lata Devi
W/o. Gundu Belgaonkar,
Major, R/at No.1626/M,
Potnis Galli, Dharwad.
...Appellants
(By Sri. Satish S Raichur, Advocate)
:2:
And :
1. Smt. Channavva
W/o. Channabasappa Kalkoppa,
Major, R/at: Potnis Galli,
Dharwad.
Since deceased by her L.R
1.A Smt. Ratna M.Shilly
C/o. M.M Shelly, Advocate,
R/o. Shelly Oni,
Near Kalmat
Sindhanoor-584 128
Raichur.
(amended as per order dt. 19.7.2012)
2. Smt. Rekha alias Shubhada
W/o. Raghavendra Rao Kulkarni,
Major, C/o. R.R Kulkarni,
Verlekar Building, V.N Naik Road,
Fatoda, Madgan, Goa.
...Respondents
(By Sri. H.M Dharigond Adv. For R.1,
R.2 served)
This RSA is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.
against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.98 passed
in R.A No.240/89 on the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge,
Dharwad, dismissing the appeal and confirming the
judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Civil Judge,
Dharwad, in O.S No.38/78 dated 16.8.85.
:3:
IN H.R.R.P NO.182/2001:
Between:
Gundurao Pralhadrao Belgaumkar
Since dead by L.R's
1.A Smt. Lata Devi
W/o. Late Gundu Rao Belgaonkar,
Major.
1.B Sri. Pralhadrao
S/o. Late Gundu Rao Belgaonkar,
Major.
1.C Sri. Hanumanth
S/o. Late GunduRao Belgaonkar,
Major.
1.A to 1.C are R/at No.1626/M
Potnis Galli, Dharwad.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Satish S Raichur Adv. For P.1 (A-C)
And:
1. Smt. Channavva
W/o. Channabasappa Hulakop,
Age: Major, Occ: Household,
R/o. Potnis Galli, Mangalwarpeth,
Dharwad.
Since deceased by her L.R
1.A Smt. Ratna M Shilly
:4:
C/o. M.M Shilly Advocate,
Shilly Oni, Near Kalmat
Sindhanur-584 128,
Dist: Raichur.
... Respondents
(By Sri. H.M Dharigond Adv.)
This petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C.,
against the order dated 22.01.2001 passed in HRC R.P
No.121/86 on the file of the Prl. District Judge,
Dharwad, dismissing the petition and confirming the
order dated 28.01.86 passed in HRC No.69/75 on the
file of the 1st Addl. Munsiff, Dharwad allowing the
petition.
These appeal & petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The second appeal is filed by plaintiffs challenging the concurrent finding that the plaintiffs are bound by the agreement of sale executed by the second defendant in favour of first defendant dated 23.06.1964 and decree for specific performance consequent thereto and that the said agreement and the consequent sale deed is :5: entered into by the second defendant without any legal necessity or in the interest of minors.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.
3. The subject matter of the suit is property bearing No.CTS 1626/M area 0,237 Sq.Yrds. comprising of house (storied building) together with backyard in Dharwad City Potnis Galli.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that it is ancestral joint family property of second defendant and plaintiffs. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the undivided sons of second defendant. They are minors. Plaintiff No.3 is the wife of second defendant. Minor plaintiffs -1 and 2 are all along under the care and guardianship of their mother, plaintiff No.3. As the interest of the second defendant is :6: adverse to the interest of plaintiffs 1 and 2, in the suit, the minor plaintiffs are represented by their mother.
5. Their case is that they learnt that second defendant had passed an agreement of sale to first defendant of the suit property for Rs.10,000-00 on 23.06.1964 and that the first defendant has obtained a decree for specific performance against the second defendant in O.S.No.63/1968 in the Court of Munsiff, Dharwad. Regular Appeal No.6/1971 filed against the said decree by the second defendant is dismissed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Dharwad. The suit property being ancestral joint family of the plaintiffs and defendant-2, plaintiffs 1 to 3 have together 3/4th share. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are co-parceners (sons) and plaintiff-3 is the wife of second defendant. The said agreement of sale is not at all binding on the interest of the plaintiffs- 1 to 3. The first defendant purported to have covered the entire suit property by the agreement of sale, there :7: was no legal necessity whatsoever for the agreement of sale. The contents of the said agreement about the antecedent debts and receipt of consideration thereunder are false and not admitted by them. The first defendant contested the suit even if it is true that they are not binding on the plaintiffs. There was no legal necessity for the agreement of sale so as to bind the interest of the plaintiffs. The agreement of sale recites that it is for Rs.10,000-00 out of which Rs.6000- 00 stated to be in respect of an earlier antecedent possessory mortgage for Rs.6,000-00 dated 19.06.1962, Rs.3805-00 stated to have been given to second defendant off and on and Rs.500-00 stated to have been taken before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of the said agreement of sale. Balance of Rs.695-00 was stipulated to be paid only at the time of execution of the sale deed itself. The major portion of the alleged consideration of Rs.6000-00 was at best an antecedent debt. But not a legal necessity, as the possessory :8: mortgage of 19.06.1962 itself stipulated that it was not redeemable till the expiry of 4 years till 19.06.1966. The next item of Rs.2805-00 which is stated to have been given to second defendant off and on and is not admitted by the plaintiffs. Even the second defendant challenged the said item in the suit against him. In any case even if proved, it would be only an antecedent debt, but not legal necessity. The next item of Rs.500-00 is stated to be cash payment before the Sub-Registrar and could only be an antecedent debt even if proved. Father cannot bind the interest of his sons by an agreement to sell. There was no legal necessity whatsoever to compel the second defendant to agree to see the suit property on 23.06.1964. The second defendant was employed all along and was in a position to maintain the family. There was no need for him at any time to raise the alleged loans. The decree for specific performance obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant is not also binding on the interest of the :9: plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration and injunction with reference to the agreement of sale and decree for specific performance. The alleged agreement of sale was patently an improvident transaction. The value of the suit property was even then much more than Rs.10,000-00 which is falsely recited in the agreement of sale. No benefit of any sort has accrued to any of the plaintiffs by the said agreement of sale. The second defendant has been wayward sort of fallow given to bad and costly habits. He rarely stays at Dharwad. The suit property is actually in possession of the plaintiffs. The first defendant was fully aware of the fact that the suit property stood in the name of the second defendant and plaintiffs 1 and 3 ever before the suit in O.S.No.63/68 was filed. The alleged agreement of sale does not even describe the second defendant as manager of the family. He was not the manager of the family. The said transaction was not entered into by the second : 10 : defendant as manager of the family nor was the suit filed against him as manager. None of the plaintiffs are bound by the said transaction in any view of the matter. Therefore they sought for the aforesaid relief.
6. After service of summons, the first defendant filed a detailed written statement contesting the claim. He contended that the suit is false, vexatious and malicious. It is filed at the instance of the second defendant the father of plaintiffs-1 and 2 and husband of the second plaintiff with a view to protract the litigation and to harass the first defendant and to deprive her of the benefit of the decree in her favour in O.S.63/68 on the file of the Munsiff, Dharwad, confirmed in R.A.6/71 on the file of Hon'ble Court. The suit is not tenable in law.
7. The second defendant all along is the manager and the karta of the joint family consisting of : 11 : himself and the plaintiffs. He is shrewd person, quite conversant with even legal affairs as he himself had worked for some time as a clerk under an Advocate. He has always been acting in the best interest of his family including the interest of his minor sons, plaintiffs-1 and
2. Second defendant himself has always been the guardian of plaintiffs -1 and 2. It is false to aver that plaintiff No.3 is looking after plaintiffs-1 and 2. The second defendant has never been able to maintain his family members despite his best efforts. He owns only the suit property and no other income yielding the property. For the purpose of maintenance of himself and his wife, the second defendant had to incur loans with number of persons. For satisfying these debts of his and for legal necessities like maintenance of himself and his family members, for their food, clothing and health, etc., Second defendant has no other alternative but to borrow amounts off and on. For these purposes defendants borrowed various amounts from the first : 12 : defendant also. He executed a simple mortgage hypothicating the suit property in favour of this defendant for Rs.3000-00 on 06.07.1960. For satisfying that debt and other debts borrowed even thereafter, the second defendant further executed a possessory mortgage deed on 19.06.1962 for Rs.6000-00. Being unable to satisfy the said debts and finding himself still in need of amounts for the purpose of legal necessity of his family and for payment of his debit, the second defendant had no other alternative but to sell the suit property. The first defendant herself being in need of a roof, offered to purchase the suit property herself for Rs.10,000-00 which is fair proper price. The second defendant agreed to sell the suit property to this defendant on 23.06.1964, under the deed of an agreement to sell. This transaction was for legal necessity and for payment of antecedent debts of the second defendant. The second defendant had no children. Then his eldest son plaintiff-1 is born on : 13 : 24.12.1964, i.e., well after the second defendant agreed to sell the suit property to this defendant for payment of his antecedent debts and for the purpose of legal necessity. Even plaintiffs-1 and 2 born thereafter are bound by the said transaction of the second defendant and they are also benefited thereby. They have no right to challenge the same. The suit property was then worth Rs.40,000-00 is false. Its fair and proper price was b out Rs.10,000-00.
8. The first defendant was thereafter constrained to file a suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell dated 23.06.1964 in O.S.NO.63/68 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Dharwad, against the second defendant. The second plaintiff was not even born then. He is born only at the end of year 1977. Though the first plaintiff was not an actual party thereto nominee, the second defendant fully represented him and his entire family in the said : 14 : suit. The said transaction as aforesaid is clearly binding on plaintiffs-1 and 2 also being one for payment of antecedent debt of the second defendant and for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family. The first plaintiff was also liable for the said debt and consequently for the said agreement to sell even under the doctrine of pious obligation. The second defendant thus representing himself as well as the first plaintiff did try to fight out the said suit by raising all sorts of objections but in vain. A decree for specific performance came to be passed therein, in favour of the first defendant. The second defendant did even challenge the same in R.A.6/71, but in vain. Thus the decree passed in O.S.No.63/68 confirmed in R.A.6/71 bind the second defendant as well as all the plaintiffs. The second defendant is trying to avoid the decree by getting this false suit filed through plaintiffs trying to take undue advantage and to abuse the process of law in view of the fact that the first plaintiff was not : 15 : nominee as party to the said decree aforesaid. It is not open for them to challenge. Plaintiffs are not entitled to go behind the decree in O.S.63/68. It is not further open for them to challenge the recitals in the agreement of sale dated 23.06.1964 and/or in other prior transactions entered into between this defendant and the second defendant. All the aforesaid transactions are merged in the said decree. The agreement of sale by the father though for payment of antecedent debt or for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family does not find the interest of the same is not correct. The suit is also not maintainable as the plaintiffs have not sought for cancellation of the said decree in O.S.No.63/68 as they are clearly bound thereby. The suit is also barred by time. The suit is filed at the crucial point of time when the decree in O.S.No.63/68 is being executed and when actual possession of the second defendant and plaintiffs is to be delivered in execution thereof to this defendant. This is the device to delay the execution of : 16 : the said decree and to defeat or deprive this defendant of the benefit under the decree. The plaintiffs are not entitled to for partition and possession sought for in respect of the suit property. They are not entitled for an injunction restraining the defendant from executing the said decree. Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief in respect of the suit property as they have no interest whatsoever therein.
9. Second defendant filed a written statement admitting all the plaint allegations, admitting that the plaintiffs are entitled to the shares as claimed and stating that he has no objection for the decree being passed in plaintiffs favour.
10. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues : -
1. Whether her plaintiff No.3 has any locus standi to question either the decree in O.S. : 17 : 63/68 or the agreement to sell dated 23.6.64?
2. Whether plaintiffs prove that their interests and the interests of defendant No.2 are conflicting and that defendant No.2 did not effectually represent them in the litigation in O.S No.63/68 and R.A No.6/71?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are not bound by the decree in O.S 63/68 and R.A 6/71 Dharwad?
4. If yes, whether plaintiffs prove that there was no legal necessity for the suit agreement to sell dated 23.6.64?
5. Whether plaintiffs are not bound by the said agreement to sell at the least under the doctrine of pious obligation to pay the antecedent debts of defendant No.2 the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2?
6. Whether the suit is in time?
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in law as contended in para-11 of the defendant No.1's W.S.?
8. Whether the court fee paid is proper?: 18 :
9. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration or for partition and possession or for the injunction sought.
10. Whether defendant No.1 is entitled for any compensatory costs?
11. Do plaintiffs prove that defendant No.2 was not the manager of the family at the time of the agreement of sale dated 23.6.64?
12. Does defendant No.1 prove that plaintiffs have no right to challenge the agreement of sale as contended in para 5 of her W.S.?
13. Is the decree for specific performance in O.S No.63/68 binding on plaintiffs'?
14. Does defendant No.1 prove that plaintiffs cannot claim to go behind the said decree?
15. Does defendant No.1 prove that the suit is un-tenable unless cancellation of the said decree is sought by plaintiffs'?
16. To what decree or order?
11. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claim examined the third plaintiff - Smt. Latadevi as : 19 : PW1. They also examined two independent witnesses - Abdul Khadar Mohammadsab Khazi and Basappa Dattappa Yeligar as PWs 2 and 3. They produced 3 documents which are marked as PWs 1 to 3. On behalf of the first defendant, her husband - Chanabasappa Basavanneppa Halakoppa was examined as DW1. The second defendant did not step into the witness box. First defendant produced 10 documents which were marked as Exs. D1 to D10.
12. The trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record held that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have a right to challenge the agreement of sale and the decree passed, as such the suit is maintainable. However, it held they have failed to establish that the suit agreement was not for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family. Therefore, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
: 20 :
13. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 16.8.1995, the plaintiffs preferred a regular appeal in R.A No. 240/1989 before the Prl. District Judge, Dharwad. The learned Judge formulated the points for consideration as under : -
1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to question the agreement of sale executed by their father on the ground of want of legal necessity and challenging the antecedent debts?
2. Whether the transaction under the agreement of sale is for legal necessity and for payment of antecedent debts and therefore binding on the plaintiffs'?
3. Whether the suit property had been grossly under valued as on the date of agreement and therefore the agreement of sale cannot be held to be valid?
4. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court requires interference?: 21 :
14. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record he held that the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the suit, but they have failed to prove that the transaction under the agreement of sale is not for legal necessity and that is not binding on them. The said property is not undervalued and therefore he dismissed the appeal.
15. Aggrieved by the two concurrent findings of the two Courts below, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.
16. The appeal came to be admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law : -
(1). Whether the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and also for consequential relief of injunction and also partition and possession : 22 : of their share without appreciating evidence on record in proper perspective? (2) Whether the Courts below were right in relying on the recital in the agreement of sale and previous possessory mortgage deed to hold that the transaction was supported the legal necessity or existence antecedent debts without there being any corroborative evidence of DW.1?
17. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the schedule property is an ancestral property. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 being minor sons of the second defendant have a right and interest in the said property by birth. Admittedly the suit agreement was entered into during their minority. They are not parties to the said agreement. They are not parties to the suit for specific performance. There was no necessity for the second defendant to enter into an agreement to sell the only property belonging to the : 23 : family where they are living. Therefore, the Courts below committed a serious error in not properly appreciating this undisputed facts and in coming to the conclusion that the agreement of sale binds these minors and there was no necessity or the transaction was for the benefit of the family and in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. Therefore, he submits the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is to be decreed.
18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first defendant supported the impugned order.
19. Re. I SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW:-
The first substantial question of law as framed gives an impression that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and has come to an erroneous conclusion. The : 24 : plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claim examined the third plaintiff and two independent witnesses. The evidence of PW1 shows that, in examination-in-chief she has stated that, her husband was not looking after her sons. The schedule property is a valuable house where they are staying in the first floor and defendant No. 1 is staying in the ground floor. It is an ancestral property.
There was no necessity for the second defendant to incur any debts. He was serving in Karnataka Textile Mill and thereafter in Primium Insurance Company.
When he was serving he could maintain the family with his salary. There was no necessity for him to incur any debts. He has spent the money received by him under the agreement of sale for his own purpose. Therefore, the agreement is not binding on them. She and her sons are not benefited to any extent. In the cross-
examination she states that her husband is not residing with her, he occasionally comes to their house. That is the position from the date of their marriage. She has no : 25 : personal knowledge about the documents executed by her husband in favour of defendant No.1 including Ex.P2. She does not know if the consideration has been passed under Ex.P2 and other transactions mentioned therein. She has studied up to V standard. Her husband has passed Metric. Except the suit house they have no other property. Their only source of living was the earning of her husband. She does not know what was the salary income of her husband when he was employed. She also does not know what was his expenditure. Her husband was working as a Clerk under Advocate Kogilkeri. After defendant No.1 obtained a decree and obstructed them to go to the latrine, she came to know about the passing of the decree for specific performance against her husband, i.e., about 7 or 8 months prior to the date of filing of the suit. She denies the suggestion that her husband was unable to maintain them and that he was incurring debts also. She denied that her husband agreed to sell : 26 : the house for legal necessity for maintenance and for payment of debts.
20. In this entire evidence there is no whisper about her husband being addicted to any bad vices and for that purpose he had incurred debts and agreed to sell the property and that the money which he received was not used for the benefit of the family or for the minor children. In fact it is the two independent witnesses who are said to be the neighbours who have spoken about the conduct of the second defendant being a drunkard person or person playing cards or spendthrift which is again uncorroborated by any acceptable evidence on record. On the contrary, DW1- husband of the first defendant has categorically stated that, initially he paid Rs.3,000/- to the first defendant by way of a simple mortgage. That loan was not repaid and then he borrowed Rs.6,000/- from his wife under a possessory mortgage stipulating 4 years time for : 27 : repayment and with that money he discharged his earlier debts. He also paid the money to one Sohan Lal Jain from whom he borrowed the loan and when he was unable to discharge the debt and when he needed money to clear the antecedent debts and also for the family necessity, he executed an agreement of sale in favour of the first defendant, got it duly registered and at the time of registering a sum of Rs.500/- was paid. After the mortgage before agreement of sale, a sum of Rs.3,805/- had been paid and hardly a sum of Rs.95/- had to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Both the Courts have carefully scrutinized this evidence on record and thereafter have come to the conclusion that the case of want of legal necessity is not established from the evidence on record. Therefore, the contention that the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective is without any substance.
: 28 :
21. Re. II SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW In so far as this substantial question of law, namely whether the Courts below could have relied on the recitals in the agreement of sale and the previous possessory mortgage deed to hold the transaction was supported by the legal necessity or existence of antecedent is concerned, it is not in dispute that the agreement of sale recites how the amount of Rs.10,000/- agreed as sale consideration has been paid. The execution of the said agreement is not in dispute. On the basis of the said agreement of sale, when the first defendant filed the suit for specific performance in O.S.63/1968, the second defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations and contested the matter. After contest the suit came to be decreed negating all his contentions. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, he preferred an appeal in R.A. No. 6/1971 challenging the findings recorded in the said suit. That appeal came to be dismissed. There is no : 29 : further appeal. Therefore, the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 6/1971 attained finality. In the said proceedings the very defence which the defendant have taken in these proceedings were urged. In addition it was urged the value of the property on the date of the agreement of sale is Rs.25,000/-. All these contentions had been negated. Therefore, the recitals in the agreement of sale that the first defendant entered into that agreement to discharge the antecedent debt and to meet the family necessity and that it is for the benefit of the family which was upheld in the earlier proceedings after contest is a substantive piece of evidence in the present proceedings on which the first defendant can rightfully rely on. Therefore, when both the Courts looked into this undisputed document, looked into the recitals in the said document and acted on that, they committed no illegality. When once the agreement is proved, the recitals in the document stands proved. The said document clearly establishes the existence of : 30 : antecedent debt, namely necessity, loan had been borrowed, there was a pressure on the estate to discharge the loan, he had to sell this property, all these facts has been established. The other evidence on record shows he had no permanent employment. He was working in a mill. He lost employment. Then he joined an insurance company. He lost that employment. Then he was working as a Clerk with a lawyer. All these clearly shows as he did not have a permanent employment and he was losing employment frequently, but he has to maintain his wife and two children, he had to incur debts. When he was unable to discharge the debts, he created the mortgage of the property. Thereafter, he redeemed it. Finally he entered into an agreement to sell the property. This conduct of the second defendant in the light of the material on record is quite normal and there is nothing unreasonable. In fact, the first simple mortgage is of the year 1960. Possessory mortgage is of the year 1962. : 31 : On the day of the possessory mortgage, possession was delivered to the first defendant. First defendant physically occupied the ground floor portion. As far as first floor portion was concerned, it was given to the second defendant to stay with his wife and children as a lessee. Though there was 4 years time for redeeming the mortgage, he entered into an agreement of sale on 23.6.2004 to sell the property. He did not keep up his words. It resulted in suit. He contested the suit. Suit was decreed. Appeal came to be filed. Appeal was dismissed. When first defendant filed Execution No. 10/1977 to get a sale deed through Court and thereafter to claim possession of the property, it is at that stage the present suit is filed seeking a declaration that this agreement of sale is not binding on them. It is an ancestral property, they have 3/4th share and their share is to be given to by them by the appellant. Viewed from this angle, it is clear the present suit is one engineered by the second defendant after losing the : 32 : legal battle. Courts below carefully have looked into the oral evidence on record as well as the undisputed documentary evidence on record and also looked into the various judgments relied on by the parties and have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case and they were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I am satisfied that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below do not suffer any legal infirmity, it is based on legal evidence, they have given cogent reasons for negating the claim of the plaintiffs and therefore a case for interference is not made out.
22. In the connected rent control proceedings, as the second defendant and the plaintiffs were in the occupation of the first floor premises, to recover possession, eviction proceedings was initiated. After contest the petition is allowed. It is against that order, : 33 : the revision petition is filed. In the light of what is observed above, it would be unjust to allow the plaintiffs and the second defendant to squat on the property taking shelter under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act which was not meant to protect these type of tenants. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Court granting decree for eviction. Hence, I pass the following order:
A. Appeal is dismissed.
B. Revision petition is dismissed. C. No costs.
SD/-
JUDGE ksp/ckl