Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shantu @Shantavva vs Laxmavva on 27 January, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
RFA No. 100420 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100420 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTU @ SHANTAVVA
W/O.NARASAPPA SUBHANJI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
R/O.ORALAGI (ONIKERI),
by ROHAN
ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Location: HIGH
HADIMANI COURT OF
TQ. MUNDGOD (U.K.) - 581 301.
KARNATAKA
T DHARWAD
Date: 2023.02.04
13:11:16 +0530
2. SHRI.SATYENDRA @ SATISH
S/O. TIRAKAPPA HONNALLI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. ORALAGI (ONIKERI),
TQ. MUNDGOD (U.K.) - 581 301.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.PALLAVI PACHCHAPURE AND
SRI.F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. LAXMAVVA
W/O. TARKESHAPPA MARATHA @ SUBHANJI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ORALAGI (ONIKERI),
TQ. MUNDGOD (U.K.) - 581 301.
-2-
RFA No. 100420 of 2017
2. NAGARAJ
S/O. TARKESHAPPA MARATHA @ SUBHANJI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ORALAGI (ONIKERI),
TQ. MUNDGOD (U.K.) - 581 301.
3. MAHABALESHWAR
S/O.TARKESHAPPA MARATHA @ SUBHANJI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. ORALAGI (ONIKERI),
TQ. MUNDGOD (U.K.) - 581 301.
4. SHIVANAND
S/O. TARKESHAPPA MARATHA @ SUBHANJI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ORALAGI (ONIKERI),
TQ. MUNDGOD (U.K.) - 581 301.
5. SMT.SUKMAVVA
W/O. SURESH RASANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ORALAGI (ONIKERI),
TQ. MUNDGOD (U.K.) - 581 301.
6. SMT.PREMA
W/O. ARJUN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ORALAGI (ONIKERI),
TQ. MUNDGOD (U.K.) - 581 301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.P.HEGDE JAMMANE AND
SRI.VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATES)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DTD. 19.10.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.10/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, YELLAPUR, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION.
-3-
RFA No. 100420 of 2017
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY,
G BASAVARAJA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants who are the plaintiffs before the trial court have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2017 passed in O.S.No.10/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial court for the sake of convenience. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration:
a. To declare that, revenue entries M.E.No.1809, 2112, M.R.Nos.5/09-10, 12/09-10 and 29/2009-10 and as well as entries in respect of 'B' schedule properties are illegal and the revenue entries as false entries and to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs/successors of deceased -4- RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji and as owners of the A and B suit schedule properties.
b. For the possession of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties from the defendants ; c. For the mesne profits from 06.08.1982 to till handover of actual possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs. d. Any other appropriate orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. In the plaint it was contended that:
4.1 The suit properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs. Originally the suit properties were owned by Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji, who was the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs and after the death of said Fakeerappa, suit schedule properties were given to the mother of the plaintiffs by name Peeravva, W/o Tirakappa Honnalli, the mother of plaintiffs, as she was the only child of -5- RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Fakirappa and Somavva. Peeravva's marriage was solmenised with one Tirakappa Honnalli.
4.2 The maternal grandfather Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji of plaintiffs died on16.02.1982.
Smt.Peeravva died, when the plaintiffs were minors and the father Sri.Tirakappa Honnalli died on27.04.2013. Hence, the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of Peeravva are having the title over the suit property.
4.3 Deceased Tarkeshappa, S/o.Lakshmanappa Maratha had no right, title whatsoever, over the suit properties. Neither Tarkesh Maratha nor defendants are legal heirs of deceased Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji nor the deceased Peeravva, W/o.Tirakappa Honnalli. Sri.Tarkeshappa, S/o.Lakshmanappa Maratha, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants Nos.2 to 7, illegally, by producing false documents and colluding with the revenue -6- RFA No. 100420 of 2017 officials got entered the M.E.No.1809. By virtue of M.E.No.1809 neither Tarkeshappa nor defendants have got any rights over the suit properties.
4.4 Deceased Tarkeshappa Maratha is not an adopted son of deceased Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji. Fakirappa has neither adopted Tarkeshappa nor executed any adoption deed. However, Tarkeshappa has forged and presented the said illegal adoption deed before the revenue authorities and got the entries mutated in his favour. The said mutation entry is not at all binding upon the plaintiffs. 4.5 Tarkeshappa died on 15.09.1994 and after his demise suit properties changed in the name of defendants and in this regard M.E. Entry No.2112 has been certified, however this mutation entry is also false and by virtue of this mutation entry the plaintiffs have lost their -7- RFA No. 100420 of 2017 right over the suit properties. Even though the defendants have no right to effect partition of the suit properties among themselves, however in order to falsify the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and in order to make profit for themselves they have illegally made partition of the suit properties between themselves and in this regard M.E.No.5/09-10 has been effected.
4.6 The defendant No.1 has not gained any right over the suit properties by virtue of M.E.No.5/09-10 and rights of the plaintiffs over the suit properties remained the same. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Fakirappa and defendants successfully got entered their name in the revenue records, took possession of and are enjoying the suit properties illegally. The illegal acts of the deceased Tarkeshappa and defendants came to -8- RFA No. 100420 of 2017 knowledge of the plaintiffs when they produced documents in said O.S.No.10/2014 on the file of Civil Judge Mundgod during last month of 2013 and beginning month of 2014.
4.7 The said O.S.No.10/2014 has been filed to evict the persons, who are residing in Sy.No.161 since 1948. However, the defendants No.1 to 5 were not in possession of said land as contended in suit. The act of the defendants as well as deceased Tarkeshappa came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs in the month of December-2013 After verifying the documents of the suit properties, plaintiffs questioned the illegal acts of the defendants in January-2014, however the defendants have denied the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit properties.
5. The Defendants Nos.1 to 6 appeared through their Counsel, only defendant No.2 has filed the written -9- RFA No. 100420 of 2017 statement. The sum and substance of the written statement is as under:
5.1. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eye of law. The prayer of the plaintiffs cannot be decided before the Civil Court as the Civil Courts have no power to declare particular mutation entries as illegal.
5.2. The defendants have no dispute about description of the suit properties. However the price of the suit properties as shown in plaint is not correct. The plaintiffs are liable to prove the actual market value of the suit properties.
5.3. Fakirappa Subhanji and Somavva had no issues. Fakirappa Subhanji and his brother Laxmana Subhanji were residing together under same roof, Fakirappa took care of the children of Laxmana Subhanji, hence preferred the adoption.
- 10 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 5.4. It was denied that plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji and contended that after the death of Tarkesh adopted son of Fakirappa, the defendant No.1 his wife and defendants No.2 to 7 his children are the legal heirs.
5.5. Natural father Laxman Subhanji gave his son Tarkeshappa for adoption on 26.02.1958 before elders and relatives, performing homa as per the custom and usage to Fakirappa Maratha @ Subhanji and got registered on dated 19.02.1958. Therefore, defendants alone are having right over the suit properties. The said adoption is legal one and from the date of adoption, Tarkeshappa became the adopted son of Fakirappa and also became the legal heir of Fakirappa and is entitled for the ownership of all the properties of deceased Fakirappa.
- 11 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable.
6. On the basis of above pleadings the trial court has framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that their mother Late Peeravva is the daughter of late Fakeerappa Narasappa Subhanji as contended?
(2) Whether defendants prove that their father Tarakeshappa was the adopted son of Fakeerappa Narasappa Subhanji as contended?
(3) Whether plaintiffs prove that mutation
entries in M.E.No.1809, 2112,
M.R.No.5/09-10, 12/09-10 and 29/09-10 are illegal, void and not binding upon them?
(4) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the owners of the suit properties?
(5) Whether plaintiffs prove their lawful possession in the suit properties?
- 12 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 (6) Whether suit is barred by limitation? (7) What order or decree?
7. To prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff No.2 examined himself as P.W.1 and examined 2 witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. and got marked 34 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-34 and closed evidence on the side of the plaintiff. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.4 was examined as D.W.1 and 47 documents got marked as Exs.D-1 to D-47.
8. On hearing the arguments trial court has given finding to the above issues as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 to 5 : In the Negative
Issue No.6 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.7 : As per final order
9. After a full fledged trial and having heard the arguments of both the parties, the trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with cost. Being
- 13 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 aggrieved by the judgment and decree the plaintiffs/appellants have preferred this appeal.
10. Appellants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of plaint seeking declaration with respect to the alleged adoption. Same is allowed by this Court as per order dated 02.11.2022 and respondents counsel has submitted that there is no additional written statement to the amended petition except to state that to relief sought for is barred by limitation. Amended plaint is also produced.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted his arguments that:
11.1 Trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law.
11.2 Finding recorded on Issue No.2 to the effect that plaintiffs have failed to prove that their mother late Peeravva is the daughter of late
- 14 -RFA No. 100420 of 2017
Fakirappa Subhanji is totally erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. In order to prove Issue No.2 plaintiffs have produced Ex.P- 1 school certificate issued by the competent authorities, and that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are competent to state regarding the relationship of the mother of plaintiffs Peeravva@ Peerakka, both the witnesses have in unequivocal terms deposed regarding the birth of Peeravva, however the trial court has not considered the same.
11.3 Further it is submitted that the trial court has not considered that in Ex.D1 adoption deed, it is mentioned that late Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji had a daughter. Under these circumstances, Issue No.1 ought to have been decided in favour of plaintiffs. The finding recorded on Issue No.1 that in Ex.P-1 surname is not mentioned and therefore document does
- 15 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 not pertain to the mother of plaintiffs, is not proper and correct.
11.4 Further consideration of trial court that in Ex.D-
1 father's name has not been shown and therefore, the said document is wholly erroneous. In view of the fact that the genealogy is pertained to husband's family of Peeravva but not her father's family, the appreciation by the learned trial Judge regarding this aspect is erroneous and improper.
11.5 Further it is submitted that the finding on Issue No.2 that defendants have proved that their father Tarkeshappa was adopted by Fakirappa Subhanji is wholly erroneous and unsustainable under law both on facts and law. Trial court has not looked into the contents of Ex.D-1 the alleged adoption deed. It is the case of the defendants that adoption has taken place after
- 16 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 commencement of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Such being the case, duty is cast on the defendants that there is valid adoption in terms of Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act. If any adoption is done contrary to Chapter-II, same shall be void. Further it is submitted that Section 10(iv) clearly indicates that the persons who may be adopted, must not have completed the age of 15 years. The reading of adoption deed Ex.D-1 dated 19.02.1958 shows that adopted son Tarkeshappa was aged about 20 years and married on the date of adoption and there is no pleading in the written statement that there exists a custom or usage, permitting a married person above the age of 15 years being considered for adoption and in fact adopted. 11.6 Such being the case, as there was no valid adoption and as it contravenes Chapter-II of
- 17 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 the Act, trial court ought to have held that adoption is void and no right is created for Tarkeshappa in the Fakirappa family. Therefore, finding of the learned Judge on Issue No.1 is wholly illegal and unsustainable under law and is liable to be set-aside.
11.7 Further it is submitted that none of the witnesses to the adoption have been examined to prove the alleged adoption. Further there is no giving and taking and so also acceptance of adopted child in terms of Section 11(vi) of the Act.
11.8 The genetic father is not a signatory to the said document and moreover, defendants have produced certified copy of the adoption deed - Ex.D-1.
11.9 The observation made and the presumption drawn by the trial court that as the original
- 18 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 adoption deed was a registered document, the adoption was a valid one, is wholly erroneous. Learned Judge ought have opined that the defendants have produced certified copy of the adoption deed, which is a secondary evidence to prove their version is unsustainable under law.
11.10 The finding of trial Judge that onus to prove adoption is on the plaintiffs is totally erroneous and findings with regard to said aspect is contrary to issue which has been framed casting burden on the defendants. Trial court ought to have considered the entries in the record of rights, which simply does not establish title. The defendants are claiming right on the basis of adoption deed Ex.D-1. Under these circumstances, unless and until the adoption deed is validly established, the defendants have no right, title and interest in
- 19 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 respect of suit schedule properties. Therefore, finding on Issue No.2 is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds, sought for allowing this appeal.
12. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted his arguments that:
12.1 Trial court has passed the impugned judgment and decree in accordance with law. Suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable under law.
12.2 Sri.Laxman Maratha @ Subhanji is the natural father of Tarkeshappa. Laxman Subhanji gave his son Tarkeshappa for adoption to his own brother, Fakirappa Maratha @ Subhanji on 26.02.1958 as per custom and tradition; said adoption deed got registered on 08.04.1958.
Therefore, Tarkeshappa is the adopted son of Fakirappa Subhanji and he is the legal heir of Fakirappa Subhanji. Defendants alone are having right over the suit properties. As
- 20 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Tarkeshappa belonged to Maratha community, on 26.02.1958 in the presence of elders, relatives and prudent persons, he adopted Tarkeshappa as his adopted son and at the time of adoption, adoption homa was also performed. Said adoption is legal one and from the date of adoption, Tarkeshappa became adopted son of Fakirappa and also became legal heir of Fakirappa and entitled to all the properties of deceased Fakirappa. That there are no weighable and legal grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. On all these grounds, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
13. We have carefully gone through the pleadings, evidence adduced by both the parties along with the documents, and submissions of both the sides. It is in the background of above submissions that we are calling upon to re-appreciate the evidence on record
- 21 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 to ascertain if the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is proper or not?
14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, following points would arise for our consideration:
(1) Whether the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove that their mother late Peeravva is the daughter of late Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji?
(2) Whether trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that defendants have proved that their father Tarkeshappa was the adopted son of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji?
(3) Whether the finding of the trial court on Issue No.6 is in accordance with law and facts?
- 22 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 (4) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial courts needs interference?
(5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief as sought for in the plaint?
(6) What order or decree?
REGARDING ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2:
15. Both the issues are interlinked to each other and hence we have taken up both the issues together for giving a finding.
15.1 Plaintiffs have filed the suit for relief of declaration to declare that M.E.No.1809, 2112, M.R.No.5/09-10, 12/09-10 and 29/2009-10 entries in respect of suit properties are illegal and plaintiffs are to be declared as legal heirs of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji. Further prayed for consequential relief of possession of the properties.
- 23 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 15.2 Plaintiffs have also taken up the specific contention that Tarkeshappa is not the son of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji and Fakirappa had not adopted the husband of defendant No.1, etc. Further contended that alleged adoption deed relied upon by defendant No.1 is created one.
15.3 In the written statement defendants have specifically denied the relationship between the deceased Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji and the plaintiffs and it is the specific case that Peeravva is not the daughter of late Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji.
15.4 To prove the relationship between deceased Peeravva, who died on 19.01.1968 and Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji, plaintiff No.2 has been examined himself as P.W.1 and examined 2 more witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked the 34 documents as
- 24 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Exs.P-1 to P-34. Ex.P-1 is the birth certificate of one Peeravva daughter of Fakirappa, who was born on 15.02.1940 at Onikeri, Mundagoda Taluk and this is the certificate issued by the Head Master of Government School, Onikeri. On the basis of this document, plaintiffs have contended that their mother's name is Peeravva.
15.5 To prove the contents of this document, plaintiff No.2 - Sathyendra @ Sathish, who is none other than the brother of plaintiff No.1 has clearly deposed in his evidence that plaintiffs are the children of Peeravva and Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji, and Fakeerappa died on 15/06/1982. He has also deposed as to the contents of Ex.P-1. During the course of cross examination of P.W.1, it is suggested by the defendants' counsel that in Ex.P-1 it is not mentioned as 'Peeravva, D/o.Fakirappa
- 25 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Narasappa Subhanji' and it is also suggested that mother of P.W.1 is the first wife of Tirkappa Honnalli. Further he has clearly stated that she was also called as 'Peeravva' and 'Peerakka', but the contents of Ex.P-1 has not been disputed by the defendants.
15.6 Apart from this, P.W.2 - Yenkappa Hanumanthappa Honnalli, P.W.3-Narsappa Laxman Subhanji have also deposed in their evidence that plaintiffs are the daughters of late Smt.Peeravva and Peeravva is the daughter of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji. Even in the evidence of D.W.1 - Shivanand Tarkeshappa Maratha has not disputed the contents of Ex.P-
1. It is argued by the defendants' counsel that in Ex.P-1 the surname of 'Fakirappa' is not mentioned. If really Ex.P-1 belongs to mother of plaintiffs, definitely proper surname of Peeravva and her father would have been
- 26 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 mentioned, hence it is difficult to accept the contents of Ex.P-1 that deceased Peeravva is the daughter of late Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji. A perusal of Ex.P-1 it is clearly mentioned that Peerakka's father is shown as 'Fakirappa'.
16. It is not mandatory under any enactments to mention the surnames in the birth certificates. Though the name of Fakirappa is mentioned in Ex.P-1, the trial court has observed that father's name 'Fakirappa' is not mentioned, which is not correct. Ex.P-1 is a public document maintained by the public authority i.e., Head Master, Government Higher Primary School, Onikeri, Mundagod Taluk and it is a certified copy of public document. Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, contemplates that certified copies may be produced in proof of contents of public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purports to be copies.
- 27 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017
17. In view of Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court shall presume [to be genuine] every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy, or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer. Further this provision contemplates that the Court shall also presume that any Officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.
18. In view of sub-section (e) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of certain facts that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. The entry of Ex.P-1 entered in the year 1940. On the basis of concerned register maintained by the School authorities, the Head Master of the said school has issued this certified copy. The defendants have not produced
- 28 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 any materials to discard the contents of Ex.P-1 and also to rebut the presumption under Section 79 and 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The reasons assigned by the trial court is not in accordance with law. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that plaintiffs have proved the contents of Ex.P-1.
19. The defendants have taken defence that one Tarkeshappa was the adopted son of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji. To substantiate this, the defendants have relied upon Ex.D-1 certified copy of adoption deed. Ex.D-1 certified copy of adoption deed dated 19.02.1958 reveals that Fakirappa, s/o. Narasappa Subhanji has adopted one Tarkeshappa, S/o. Lakshmana Subhanji, in which the recital of the document reveals that since Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji has no male issues and there are no further hopes of having so, he has adopted his own younger brother's son Tarkeshappa as per the customs and
- 29 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 traditions prevailing over their family. This recital further reveals as under:
"zÀvÀÛPÀ «zsÁ£ÀªÀÅ £ÀqÉzÀ ¢ªÀì £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ UÀ©ðt¬ÄzÀÄÝ ¥Àæ¸ÀªÀ ªÉÃzÀ£É¬ÄAzÀ §ºÀ¼À UÁ§jªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁ£ÀUÀ®è zÀªÁSÁ£ÉUÉ PÀgÀPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÀAUÀ (§AzÀ) «zÀÝjAzÀ F zÀvÀÛPÀ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉAiÀÄ°PÉÌ DUÀ°®è. PÁgÀt FªÀvÉÛà §gÀPÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ."
20. The translated English version of above recital is:
"Today I have executed the adoption deed, as I was unable to execute the adoption deed on the day of dattaka homa, as the panic situation so happened as my pregnant daughter suffered labour pain and I have to take her to Hanagalla Hospital."
21. The contents of this document has not been disputed by the parties. A careful scrutiny of contents of this Ex.D-1 - adoption deed dated 19.02.1958, which is registered on 04.03.1958 reveals that Fakirappa, S/o.Narasappa Subjanji was having 1 daughter, who had labour pain at the relevant point of time. This undisputed contents of Ex.D-1 clearly goes to show that Fakirappa S/o.NarasappaSubhanji was having one daughter Peerakka. In this regard, P.W.1 to P.W.3 have clearly deposed in their evidence that
- 30 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Smt.Peeravva, w/o. Thirkappa Honnalli is the daughter of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji.
22. The evidence of plaintiffs clearly discloses that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the children of Smt.Peeravva, wife of Thirkappa Honnalli. Accordingly, plaintiffs have proved that their mother late Peeravva is the daughter of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji.
23. It is the case of the defendant that their father Tarkeshwara was the adopted son of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji. To prove this fact, the defendants have produced registered adoption deed dated 19.02.1958 - Ex.D-1, which is registered on 04.03.1958, which reveals that Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji has adopted Tarkeshwara son of Laxmanappa as per the customs and rights prevailing in their community. As mentioned supra the Plaintiffs have contended that adoption has taken place after commencement of Hindu Adoptions and
- 31 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), such being the case, the adoption is not as per the Act and against terms and conditions mentioned in the said Act.
24. Before the appreciation of evidence, placed on record as to the adoption deed dated 19.02.1958, which is registered on 04.03.1958, it is necessary to mention here as to the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, which reads as under:
"16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption.--Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved."
25. Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before the Court, purporting to record adoption made and is signed by the person giving and person taking the
- 32 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 child in adoption, the Court shall presume that adoption is executed in compliance with the provisions of this Act. It is held that the proof of giving and taking of a child is not necessary in PATHIVADA RAMA SWAMI v KARODA SURYA PRAKASA RAO reported in AIR 1993 AP 336.
26. With regard to Section 10(iv) of the Act, it contemplates that he/she should not have completed the age of 15 years, unless there is a custom or usage, applicable to the parties which permit the persons who have completed the age of 15 years being taken in adoption.
27. In the case on hand, in paragraph 8 of the written statement of defendant No.2 he has clearly stated that Tarkeshappa son of Laxmana Subhanji resident of Onikeri and Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji resident of Onikeri belongs to Maratha community and that on 19.02.1958 as per the customs and traditions prevailing in Maratha community, in the presence of
- 33 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 elders relatives, prudent persons and Brahmins said adoption was solmenised and at the time of adoption Dattaka Homam was performed and same is mentioned in the document.
28. Learned trial Judge has relied on the decision of High Court of Bombay in the case of HANMANT LAXMAN SALUNKE v. SHRIRANG NARAYAN KANSE reported in AIR 2006 Bombay 123, wherein it has observed as under:
"By following the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anirudh (Supra) and by the Apex Court in the case of Kondiba (Supra) it will have to be held that in the instant case it was not necessary for the defendant to prove by evidence before the trial Court that there was a custom or usage prevailing in the Maratha community in Satara District of adopting a boy who had crossed the age of 15 years and was also married at the time of adoption. The contentions of the appellant that the adoption of the respondent as had taken place on 22-11-1988 was illegal on account of non-compliance of Section 10(iii) and Section 10(iv) of the Act have to be rejected and thus the substantial questions of law at serial no.(ii) and (iii) are hereby answered against the appellant-plaintiff."
- 34 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017
29. Further the trial court has followed the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KONDIBA RAMA PAPAL ALIAS SHRIKE vs NARAYAN KONDIBA PAPAL reported in AIR 1991 SC 1180 and High Court of Bombay in the case of ANIRUDH JAGEORAO vs BABARAO IRBAJI AND ORS. reported in AIR 1983 Bom 391 (FB).The Bombay High Court by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAMA PAPAL ALIAS SHRIKE vs NARAYAN KONDIBA PAPAL reported in AIR 1991 SC 1180, has held as under:
"it was necessary for the parties to prove by evidence before the trial court was there was a custom or usage prevailing in Marathi community in Satara District of adopting 'a boy who had cross of age 15 years and was also married at the time of adoption.'"
30. In the case on hand, Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji had adopted Tarkeshappa, who has crossed the age of 15 years and was married at the time of adoption. Plaintiffs have not disputed that there is no dispute between the parties that they belong to Maratha
- 35 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 community. The defendants and their ancestors were residing in Mundagod Taluk, which comes under old Bombay Province Area. Trial court has opined that defendants have proved that there is a custom and usage applicable to the parties, which comes under persons who have completed the age of 15 years being taken in adoption as required under sub section (iv) of Section 10 of the Act.
31. The trial court has appreciated that defendants have proved the contents of Ex.D-1 by producing the certified copy of registered adoption deed and adduced the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2. Plaintiffs have not placed any materials to discard the evidence placed by the defendants as to the registered adoption deed. Plaintiffs have also failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 16 of the Act. Considering all these aspects, learned trial Judge has elaborately discussed as to the pleadings, evidence with relevant citations and came
- 36 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 to the conclusion that defendants have proved the Issue No.1, which is in accordance with law. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in the negative and Point No.2 in the affirmative.
32. It is an undisputed fact that Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji died on 15.06.1982 and then the suit properties changed in the name of Tarkeshappa Subhanji as per Ex.D-8 on 06.08.1988. Ex.D-7 mutation entry No.2112 discloses that after death of Tarkeshappa, adopted son of Fakirappa, the suit properties were changed in the name of defendants. Exs.D-12 to D-14 reveals that after the death of Tarkeshappa suit properties were changed in the name of defendants on 05.09.2009. The trial court has observed in page 39 of the judgment as under:
"Admittedly the plaintiffs have not at all challenged the adoption deed within a period of stipulated time. Moreover the plaintiffs have failed to prove by placing sufficient material evidence on record to show that during the 2014 only they came to know about the alleged adoption and as well as all alleged mutation entries. That apart PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that about 20 years back Tarkeshappa died and after his
- 37 -RFA No. 100420 of 2017
demise suit properties changed in the name of defendants as a legal heirs. Further admitted that the defendants have divided the suit properties among themselves but he does not know the same. Further admits that the house of defendants is situated only 200 mtrs. away from the house of the plaintiff No.1. Further admits that he is ready to examining plaintiff No.1 in this case. Admittedly the plaintiff No.1 has not been examined by the plaintiffs. If really the plaintiffs are having right over the suit properties and definitely they are legal heirs of deceased Fakirappa Narsappa Subhanji definitely they would have challenged themutation entry No. 1809 and as well as 2112 long back when they have been taken place. On careful scrutiny of Ex.D1 it is evident that big adopted ceremony conducted in the house of the Tarkeshappa and the plaintiffs are residing in the same village definitely they would have known about the adoption. When the house of the plaintiff No.1 is situated near by the house of the defendants definitely plaintiff No.1 challenged the above mutation entries long back itself. When they known that they are not legal heirs of Tarkeshappa they did not file the objection to the above mutation entries or challenged the adoption deed long back."
33. In paragraph 30 of the judgment the trial court has observed as under:
"30. It is the contention of the plaintiffs, that the defendants have tried to dispossess the persons who are staying in Sy.No.161 and also filed suit O.S.No.10/2014 against the plaintiffs and others then the plaintiffs have verified the records of suit properties and found the alleged adoption deed and as well as alleged mutation entries. Then the plaintiffs asked with the defendants about the
- 38 -RFA No. 100420 of 2017
said entries but the defendants have denied the right of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. Therefore they filed this suit on 19-3-2014. The learned advocate for plaintiffs also during the course of argument submitted that when suit filed by the defendants, then they came to know about the fraud or mischief played upon the defendants. That apart the limitation for suit for declaration starts from the date when, the title of the plaintiffs has been denied by the defendants in the year 2014. So plaintiffs have rightly filed this suit in the year 2014 itself. Hence this suit is not barred by law of limitation. In support of his argument he has further relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2004 Rajasthan Page 197 (Veerendra Singh V/s Kashiram) and as well as 2017(1) 422 (The Golden Valley Educational Trust Orgam V/s Vokkaligara Sangha Bangalore) I have gone through the same, in the first decision it is held that Limitation begins to run from the date plaintiffs discovers fraud played upon him and not from the date of execution of gift deed and as well as alleged date of adoption'. Admittedly in this suit the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendants have played mischief or fraud upon the plaintiffs. Moreover no reliable documents produced by the plaintiffs to show that their mother Lt. Peeravva is the daughter of Lt. Fakirappa. On the other hand defendants have established that Tarkeshappa was the legally adopted son of Fakirappa Subhanji, by placing sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record. Hence this ruling is not attracted to the case on hand. Similarly in the second ruling also the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that 'Limitation for suit for declaration of title starts from the date the title is denied'. Admittedly the house of plaintiff No.1 is situated near by the house of the defendants. Moreover long back the suit properties changed in the name of Tarkeshappa Subhanji who is the adopted son of
- 39 -RFA No. 100420 of 2017
Fakirappa. Even after death of Tarkeshappa also suit properties changed in the name of defendants long back. Neither plaintiffs nor their mother Peeravva have challenged the mutation entries or as well as 1958 gift deed since 2014. Recently in the year 2014 only they come up with this suit stating that the fraud committed by the defendants to came to known to them recently and defendants have denied right over the suit properties etc., However the cause of action as stated by the plaintiffs in this suit is imaginary one and in order to file this suit only they stated in the plaint that in the year of 2013 and as well as in the year of 2014 only they came to know about the alleged mutation entries and as well as adoption deed etc., Therefore the defendants have successfully established that the suit is barred by limitation. According to Sec.58 of Within Limitation Act the plaintiffs ought to have filed this suit three years when the right to sue first accrues to them. The plaintiffs or their ancestors ought to have challenged the adoption within 3 years from the date of adoption or registration of adoption deed or within 3 years from the date of change of records of suit properties from the name of Fakirappa into the name of Tarkeshappa. However the plaintiffs have filed this suit after long delay of the right to sue first accrues to them. Therefore the suit is barred by limitation."
34. While answering Issue No.1, this Court has held that learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to prove that their mother late Peeravva is the daughter of late Fakirappa Narasappa
- 40 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Subhanji. Hence, after the death of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji, their mother will become the legal heir of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji. Ex.D-5
- notice published under Rule 65 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1966, reveals that Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji died on 15.06.1982 and the name of his adopted son Tarkeshappa is entered in the mutation register.
35. Ex.D-6 is the mutation entry No.1809 which reveals that on 06.08.1982 Tarkeshappa's adopted father Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji died on 15.06.1958 in Onikeri village and his wife is also expired and he has no male or female child. Hence, name of adopted son is entered in the mutation register. On what basis this mutation entry No.1809 came to be effected has not been explained by the defendants. Only on the basis of varadi given by Tarkeshappa, the revenue authorities have entered the name of Tarkeshappa.
- 41 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017
36. Ex.D-1 adoption deed produced by the defendants itself reveals that Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji was having a daughter and she was suffering from labour pain at the time of execution of this adoption deed. The contents of this adoption deed itself is sufficient to hold that Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji was having a daughter by name Peeravva. Tarkeshappa has suppressed the real facts as to the legal heirs of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji and has submitted a varadi before the revenue authorities, accordingly revenue authorities have entered the name of Tarkeshappa in the revenue records. The defendants have not placed any materials before the Court as to why Tarkeshappa has not mentioned the name of daughter of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji in the varadi. Whether the daughter of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji was alive or not at the time of submitting varadi to the revenue authorities has not been disclosed by the defendants. This conduct of
- 42 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 defendants clearly shows that Tarkeshappa has not submitted varadi in accordance with law. Accordingly, revenue authorities entered his name in the mutation extracts, is not proper.
37. Plaintiffs have clearly stated that the defendants have tried to dispossess the persons who are staying in Sy.No.161 and also filed suit O.S.No.10/2014 against the plaintiffs and others, only then the plaintiffs have verified the records of suit properties and found the alleged adoption deed as well as alleged mutation entries.
38. The main contention of defendants is that if really Peeravva was the legal heirs of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji, she would have filed an application before the revenue authorities to enter her name in the revenue records pertaining to the suit properties, but she has not done so. Hence, plaintiffs have no locus- standi to show that they are the legal heirs of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji.
- 43 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017
39. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here as to the provisions of Section 28 of the Hindu Law by Mulla, which reads as under:
"28. Inheritance never in abeyance.--(1) on the death of a Hindu, the person who is then his nearest heir becomes entitled at once to the property left by him. The right of succession vests in him immediately on the death of the owner of the property. It cannot, under any circumstances, remain in abeyance in expectation of the birth of a preferable heir, where such heir was not conceived at the time of the owner's death.
(2) Where the estate of a Hindu has vested in a person, who is his nearest heir at the time of his death, he cannot be divested of the property, expect either by the birth of a preferable heir such as a son or a daughter, who was conceived at the time of his death, or by adoption in certain cases of a son to the deceased."
40. As per the principle of "inheritance never is in abeyance", the property always has an owner and there can be no lapse in succession. The right of succession arises immediately on the death of the owner of property, which means that property has always one owner.
- 44 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017
41. Mere non submission of varadi to the revenue authorities itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that plaintiffs are not the legal representatives of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji. On the contrary, Tarkeshappa, who is the adopted son of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji, who is also close relative of plaintiff's family, ought to have given varadi to the revenue authorities as to the genealogy tree of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji, but he has not done so.
42. It is well settled principle of law that only on the basis of varadi submitted to the revenue authorities by giving suppression of real facts will not confer the title over the properties. In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE v. ARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT CO. AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 3 SCC 191. In paragraph 6 it is observed as under:
- 45 -RFA No. 100420 of 2017
"6. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question."
43. Mere entry of name of Tarkeshappa in the year 1982 as per Exs.D-5 and D-6 revenue records will not confer the absolute right and title over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, mutation entries namely, M.E.No.1809, 2112, M.R.No.5/2009-10, 12/2009-10 and 29/2009-10 are not binding upon these plaintiffs to the extent of their legitimate share over the suit properties.
44. The trial court has observed in the impugned judgment that in view of Section 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963,the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit within 3 years when the right to sue first accrues to them, however the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and also for possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs are the children of
- 46 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Peeravva wife of Tirkappa Honnalli. The plaintiffs have also proved that Peeravva is the daughter of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji and admittedly, Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji was the owner of this suit schedule properties, which are ancestral properties. The adopted son Tarkeshappa and Peeravva will get half share each over the suit schedule properties in view of the decision of VINEETA SHARMA vs RAKESH SHARMA reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 being the daughter and son of Peeravva respectively, will not get half share over the suit schedule properties.
45. The defendants have not placed any materials to show that plaintiffs have excluded the plaintiffs from the joint family properties of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji. Keeping in mind the provision of Section 28 of Hindu Law by Mulla and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that aforesaid mutation entries
- 47 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 made in favour of Tarkeshappa subsequently in favour of the defendants, will not be binding upon plaintiffs' right and title to the extent of share of plaintiffs. The trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in this regard.
46. On re-appreciation of evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that plaintiffs have proved Point No.1 and defendants have proved Point No.2 and finding of the trial court on issue No.6 is not in accordance with law and facts. Hence, impugned judgment and decree needs interference of this Court. Plaintiffs are entitled for relief to the extent of half share over the suit properties. REASONS TO POINT Nos.3 AND 4:
47. With regard to limitation of filing of suit is concerned, the trial court has observed in paragraph 29 that:
"After the death of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji, the suit properties changed in the name of Takeshappa adopted son of Fakirappa as per M.E. entry No.1809. Said adopted son of Tarkeshappa also died on 15-9-1994 leaving
- 48 -RFA No. 100420 of 2017
behind him his legal heirs as defendants and thereafter M.E. entry No.2112 had been certified. All these proceedings have been taken place about 20 years back. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation."
48. On appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence on record, this Court has held that the plaintiffs have got half share over the suit schedule properties. No partition is effected between the plaintiff and defendants at any point of time after the death of Fakirappa Narasappa Subhanji. Therefore, the question of limitation to claim the share of plaintiff does not arise. Hence, in this regard, trial court coming to the conclusion that suit is barred by time, is bad in law.
49. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, possession of suit schedule properties with mesne profits from 06.08.1982 till recovery of possession. Though plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties after the death of Fakirappa
- 49 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 Narasappa Subhanji, have failed to establish their absolute title and right so over the suit schedule properties.
50. Insofar as, joint family properties are concerned, in a suit for partition and separate possession, the question of mesne profit would not arise. A coparcener who is in possession of a joint family property will be liable to account for the profits derived from the joint family property in excess of his share. The mesne profits could be ordered only if there is unlawful possession which in this case is not.
51. In this regard, the decision rendered in the case of THAMMEGOWDA v. SIDDEGOWDA reported in ILR 1991 KAR 4506, would apply more particularly as stated in paragraphs No.6 and 7 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"6. In the Judgment as well as in the preliminary decree drawn by the trial Court, it has been stated that the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profits in respect of his share in the joint family properties. Therefore, an enquiry into future mesne profits has been ordered. In a suit
- 50 -RFA No. 100420 of 2017
for partition and separate possession, the question of mesne profits does not arise. The coparcener who will be in possession of the joint family property will be liable to account for the profits derived from the joint family property in excess of his share. The possession of a coparcener of the joint family property is not unlawful because his right extends over the entire joint family property until it is divided by metes and bounds. The possession of a coparcener of the joint family property until it is divided by metes and bounds does not become unlawful so as to make him liable for mesne profits. Therefore, the question of mesne profits does not arise. Of course, he has to account for the income of the share of the plaintiff from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession. Therefore, the trial Court is not justified in directing that the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profits from the date of suit. It ought to have directed that the plaintiff is entitled to accounts of the profits of his share from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly.
7. For the reasons stated above, this Appeal is allowed in part. The decree of the trial Court in so far as it relates to moveables is set aside. In so far it relates to immoveable properties, it is affirmed. The Judgment and decree are further modified in so far they make the defendants liable for mesne profits. It is ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to the accounts of the profits of his share from the date of the suit till the date of actual delivery of possession. Accordingly, it is further directed under Order 20 Rule 18 of the C.P. Code that the defendants shall account for the profits in respect of the share of the plaintiff from the date of the suit till the date of actual delivery of possession. The actual division by metes and bounds in terms of the decree be made; actual possession of the share of the plaintiff be delivered to him according to the nature of the property either through the Deputy Commissioner or the Court Commissioner as the case may be.
- 51 -RFA No. 100420 of 2017
52. Having gone through the said judgment, it is clear that the possession of a joint family property until it is divided by metes and bounds, does not become unlawful but ofcourse he would have to account for the income of the share of the plaintiff from the date of suit till the date of delivery of the possession. Accordingly, the defendants who are now stated to be in possession of suit properties would have to account for profits and not for mesne profits.
53. Invoking the powers conferred under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, the appellate court shall have the power to mould the relief to meet the ends of justice, considering the facts and circumstances, we can pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may be required and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of
- 52 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection.
54. In view of the above provision, we mould the relief sought and declare the rights of the plaintiffs to the extent of half share over the suit schedule properties.
55. The plaintiffs have sought for mense profits from 06.08.1982 till recovery of possession from the defendants. As the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are the absolute owners of the properties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we have held that the plaintiffs are entitled for half share of the suit schedule properties. As per the plaint averments the cause of action arose in the month of January 2014 .The plaintiffs have not prayed for partition and separate possession, however sought for declaration. This court, keeping in mind that plaintiffs have not sought for their
- 53 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017 legitimate share, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for mense profits from 06.08.1982 till the filling of suit, however they are entitled for mense profits from date of filing the suit till the recovery of possession. Accordingly, we answer Point No.3 in the negative and Point No.4 in the affirmative.
RE. ISSUE NOs.5 &6:
56. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Appeal is partly allowed. (2) Judgment and decree dated 19.10.2017 passed in O.S.No.10/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur, is set aside. (3) Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are declared to be entitled to half share jointly over the suit schedule properties.
(4) The trial court is directed to conduct enquiry as to the mense profits from
- 54 -
RFA No. 100420 of 2017
the institution of suit until the recovery of possession and mense profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such enquiry.
(5) Plaintiffs are directed to take necessary steps under Section 54 of Code of Civil Procedure to effect partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds.
(6) Registry to draw-up the decree accordingly.
(7) Registry is directed to transmit the trial court records along with the copy of the judgment and decree.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DR List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2