Madras High Court
Unknown vs Thambia Pillai on 23 January, 2018
Author: T.Ravindran
Bench: T.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.12.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S. A.No.1704 of 2001
1. Radha
2. Mariammal @ Radhika
(Cause title accepted vide
order of Court dated 19.10.2001
made in CMP No.17545 of 2001) ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Thambia Pillai
2. Thillaiammal ... Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2001 made in A.S.No.108 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.02.1997, made in O.S.No. 283 of 1993, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.
For Appellants : Mr.Srinath Sridevan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Vijendran
*****
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2001 passed in A.S.No.108 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.02.1997, passed in O.S.No. 283 of 1993, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam.
2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. Suit for partition and mesne profits.
4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property originally belonged to Govinda pillai and he died several years ago, leaving behind his two sons, namely, Somasundaram pillai and Murugaiya pillai and a daughter namely, Dhanapakkiam and Somasundaram pillai died in the year 1956, leaving behind his son Veerasamy and daughter Thillayammal, who is the third defendant and the second defendant Radha is the widow of Veerasamy, who died in the year 1992. The plaintiff is the son of Dhanapakkiam. Murugaiya pillai's second wife is Sundarambal, who is the first defendant and his first wife Kunjammal predeceased him. According to the plaintiff, after the demise of Govinda pillai, his two sons and daughter succeeded to his property as his legal heirs and thus, each one of them is entitled to 1/3rd share in his property and accordingly, as co-owners, they had been in possession and enjoyment of his property and after the demise of the sons and daughter above stated, the legal representatives of the sons and daughter above described continued to enjoy the suit property as joint owners and so far as the suit property is concerned, the same has not been divided and the suit property is in the possession of the second defendant on behalf of the co-owners and in fact, some of the properties belonged to the family were sold by the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff was given his share of the sale proceeds realised from the same and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property as the legal heir of Dhanapakkiam and despite the requests of the plaintiff to effect partition, the defendants did not come forward and the fourth defendant has been added as a party, in the light of the defence taken by the second defendant and the first defendant having died pending suit on 12.05.1995 and as she had no issue and the plaintiff being her only legal heir, the plaintiff's memo with reference to the same has been recorded by the Court and thus, the plaintiff is also entitled to obtain the share of the first defendant and in toto, the plaintiff is entitle to obtain 2/3rd share in the suit property and hence the suit.
5. The case of the first defendant, in brief, is that she is the legal heir of the deceased Murugaiya pillai and the third defendant and the husband of the second defendant namely, Veerasamy, are the legal heirs of Somasundaram pillai and the plaintiff is the legal heir of Dhanapakkiam and admitted that the suit property is in the possession of the second defendant on behalf of the joint family members and claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property, accordingly, prayed the Court to dispose of the plaintiff's suit for partition.
6. The case of the second defendant in brief is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the suit property originally belonged to Govinda pillai and he died leaving behind his two sons and daughter as putforth in the plaint. However, as per the law applicable then in force, on the death of Govinda pillai during the year 1940, his daughter would not be entitled to claim any share and his property would devolve only upon his sons and Murugaiya pillai's only wife, by name, Kunjammal, died issueless and Murugaiya pillai also died in the year 1945 and the first defendant is not his second wife and not legally wedded to him and she is only a concubine and she cannot claim any share as the legal heir of Murugaiya pillai and on the death of Murugaiya pillai on 1945, the sole surviving co-parcener being Somasundaram pillai, he succeeded to the entire property and on the death of Somasundaram pillai on 16.8.1986, his legal heirs namely Veerasamy and the third defendant succeeded to the property and as per the law in force at the time of the death of Somasundaram pillai, his daughter namely, the third defendant, would also not be entitled to any share and therefore, his only son Veerasamy became the absolute owner of the suit property and therefore, neither the plaintiff nor the first defendant and the third defendant are entitled to claim any share in the suit property and they had never jointly enjoyed the suit property along with Veerasamy or the second defendant, as the case may be, and the joint possession and enjoyment pleaded is false and imaginary and the suit laid by the plaintiff claiming to be in possession of the suit property for the relief of permanent injunction in O.S.No.518/73 came to be dismissed on 29.3.75 holding that he his not in the possession and the suit laid by the first defendant claiming to have some interest in the suit property in O.S. No.135/69, which suit has been laid for the relief of redemption of usufructuary mortgage, the said mortgage having been discharged by Veerasamy, the suit was ultimately dismissed on 21.3.72 and thereby, it is only Veerasamy, who has been all along continuously in enjoyment of the suit property for several years in hostile assertion of the title excluding others to their knowledge without any interruption and thus, he has perfected his title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and hence, the suit laid by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and the first defendant has not challenged the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.135/69 and also not laid any separate suit for claiming her share in the suit property and even the third defendant has not asserted any claim of share in the suit property and therefore, even if they had any share, the same had got extinguished by the continuous enjoyment of Veerasamy on the ground of ouster and Veerasamy died in 1992, leaving behind the second defendant and his daughter as his legal heirs and they have succeeded to the suit property and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the suit property and without any cause of action, the suit laid by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
7. The fourth defendant who has been subsequently impleaded pleaded that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 3 are not entitled to claim any share in the suit property and the suit property had been inherited absolutely by her father Veerasamy as putforth in the written pleas of the second defendant and on account of his long and continuous enjoyment, hostile to the knowledge of others, he had also perfected title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and hence on the demise of Veerasamy it is only the second defendant and the fourth defendant who are entitle to obtain the share in the suit property and further the plaintiff cannot claim share in the suit property as the legal heir of the deceased first defendant and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
8. In support of the plaintiff's case PWs 1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the defendants DWs 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.B1 to B12 were marked. Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked.
9. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to obtain 2/8th share in the suit property and also held that the third defendant is entitled to obtain the 3/8th share and the defendants 2 and 4 are jointly entitled to obtain 3/8th share in the suit property and accordingly, granted the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, the first appellate Court also concurred with the above said determination of the parties' shares in the suit property, as declared by the trial Court and resultantly, dismissed the first appeal laid by the defendants 2 and 4. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has come to be laid.
10. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration:
In the absence of a cause of action on the date of the plaint, can the suit for partition be maintained, assuming that such a right had accrued to the plaintiff subsequently?
11. It is not in dispute that the suit property originally belonged to Govinda pillai. It is also not in dispute that Govinda pillai had two sons namely, Somasundaram pillai and Murugaiya pillai and a daughter by name Dhanapakkiam. The plaintiff is the son of Dhanapakkiam. Veerasamy is the son of the deceased Somasundaram pillai and the second and fourth defendant are his wife and daughter respectively. The third defendant is the daughter of Somasundaram pillai. The first defendant is the second wife of Murugaiya pillai. Claiming that he is entitled to obtain 1/3 share in the suit property, on the footing that he is the legal heir of Dhanapakkiam, the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff. Further, it is also the plea of the plaintiff during the course of the trial that as the first defendant had died pending suit and he being his legal representative, as per the further case of the plaintiff, the same having also been recorded by the trial Court, according to the plaintiff, the 1/3rd share to which the first defendant is entitled to, would also devolve upon him after her death. In toto, according to the plaintiff, he is entitle to 2/3rd share in the suit property.
12. The defendants 2 and 4 have contested the status of the first defendant as the wife of Murugaiya pillai. It is found that Murugaiya pillai died in the year 1945 and it is admitted that his first wife Kunjammal predeceased him. According to the first defendant, she is the second wife of Murugaiya pillai and the above claim of the first defendant is resisted by the defendants 2 and 4. However, the plaintiff is sailing with the first defendant and admitted that she as the wife of Murugaiya pillai is entitle to obtain 1/3rd share in the suit property.
13. As regards the status of the first defendant Sundarambal @ Sundarathammal, it is found that the deceased Somasundaram pillai and Murugaiya pillai had settled the family properties, inclusive of the suit property also in her favour, by way of the settlement deed dated 15.01.44, marked as Ex.A1, wherefrom, it is seen that the above said settlement deed had come to be effected by the above said two brothers in recognition of Murugaiya pillai taking her as the wife and therefore, inasmuch as the above said settlement deed has not been disputed as such, it is found that inasmuch as the first defendant had been taken as the wife of Murugaiya pillai, on some understanding, the two brothers had chosen to settle the family properties in favour of the first defendant by way of Ex.A1 settlement deed and the recitals incorporated therein would also amply establish that the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Murugaiya pillai and accordingly, accepting her above status, it is seen that the two brothers had settled the family properties in her favour and it is too late for the defendants 2 and 4 to contest the status of the first defendant that she is not the legally wedded wife of Murugaiya pillai. That apart, exercising ownership over the suit property obtained by way of Ex.A1 settlement deed, it is found that the first defendant had also usufructuary mortgaged the same, in favour of one Pachamuthu Nadar and seeking the redemption of the said mortgage dated 29.04.1944, it is found that the first defendant had laid the suit in O.S.No.135/69, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam and in the said suit, Veerasamy, son of Somasundaram pillai, the plaintiff, son of Dhanapakkiam, were impleaded as the defendants 2 and 3 respectively and the mortgagee Pachamuthu Nadar has been arrayed as the first defendant. The judgment rendered in the above said suit has come to be marked as Ex.A2 (certified copy) and a perusal of the same would go to show that several contentions were putforth by the respective parties therein and therein also, a challenge has been made by Veerasamy as regards the status of the first defendant, who was the plaintiff in the said suit and accordingly, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respective parties in the said suit, the Court taking into consideration the recitals found in the settlement deed marked as Ex.A1, in the present suit as above stated and also the notice issued by Veerasamy to the first defendant dated 02.04.1968 marked as Ex.A3 in O.S.No.135/69, wherein he has clearly issued the said notice admitting the status of the first defendant that she is the wife of Murugaiya pillai and accordingly, based on the same also and also from the evidence adduced by the respective parties in the said suit, the Court in the above said suit determined that the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of Murugaiya pillai. The contention putforth by Veerasamy that Ex.A1 settlement deed cannot be validly accepted was also rejected by the Court in the said suit, particularly noting that he having chosen to discharge the mortgage deed executed by the first defendant in favour of Pachamuthu Nadar, is not entitled to challenge the validity of the settlement deed Ex.A1. Accordingly, firmly concluded that the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of Murugaiya pillai. As against the above said findings rendered in the said suit, it is seen that no challenge has been made by Veerasamy and others. It is therefore found that the said findings have become final. In such view of the matter, it is too late for the defendants 2 and 4 herein to again rake up the issue of the status of the first defendant as if she is not the legally wedded wife of Murugaiya pillai.
14. It is also found that accepting the status of the first defendant as the wife of Murugaiya pillai and also the fact that she is one of the co-owners of the suit property, from Ex.A4 sale deed, it is seen that the defendants 1, 2 and the 4th defendant, the minor represented by the second defendant and the third defendant have also jointly alienated certain family properties under the said document and this would also further add strength to the case of the first defendant that inasmuch as she is the legally wedded and legitimate wife of Murugaiya pillai and enjoying the property of Govinda pillai along with others, accordingly, it is seen that the sale deed has come to be jointly executed by the members of the family by way of Ex.A4. In such view of the matter, the Courts below have rightly upheld the status of the first defendant that she is legally wedded wife of Murugaiaya pillai and as such entitled to lay a claim of share in the suit property.
15. It is however argued by the counsel appearing for the defendants 2 and 4 that the suit laid by the first defendant in O.S.No.135/69 has been ultimately dismissed and therefore, it is stated that the first defendant is not entitled to lay any claim of share in the suit property. A perusal of the document marked as Ex.A2 would go to show that the suit laid by the first defendant for redemption of mortgage had come to be dismissed on noting that inasmuch as Veerasamy had already discharged the mortgage effected by the first defendant, accordingly, the Court had dismissed the suit laid by the first defendant for the redemption of mortgage and therefore, the Court has not dismissed the said lis of the first defendant on the footing that she is not entitled to effect the mortgage of the properties conveyed to her under Ex.A1 settlement deed. In such view of the matter, the dismissal of O.S. No.135/69 by itself would not in any manner belittle the defence projected by the first defendant for claiming her share in the suit property.
16. A perusal of Ex.A2 would also go to show that even the status of Veerasamy had been put in issue in the said suit contending that he is not the son of Somasundaram pillai. However, based on the materials placed in the said suit, the Court has finally come to the conclusion in the said suit that Veerasamy, who had been arrayed as the second defendant in the said suit, is the legitimate son of Somasundaram pillai. In the said suit the Court has held that inasmuch as Veerasamy had been born to Somasundaram pillai, on the date of Ex.A1, he having acquired right over the properties comprised therein by birth, accordingly, holding that excluding him, the settlement deed executed by Somasundaram pillai and Murugaiya pillai, may not bind him, accordingly, further noting that Veerasamy had discharged the mortgage executed by the first defendant, ultimately dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is found that the Court in O.S.No.135/69 has not disbelieved the execution of the settlement deed Ex.A1 in favour of the first defendant and on the other hand, only held that Veerasamy would also be entitled to a share in the suit property as a co-owner.
17. When it is found that the Courts below have rightly held that the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of Murugaiya pillai and Murugaiya pillai having died in the year 1945, it is seen that his share in the family properties would devolve upon his wife and it is also seen that already both Somasundaram pillai and Murugaiya pillai had settled the family properties in favour of the first defendant by way of Ex.A1 settlement deed. However, it has been held that the same would not bind the share of Veerasamy in the family properties.
18. Materials placed disclose that Govinda pillai died in the year 1940. The plaintiff has not come out clearly as to when Govinda pillai had died. Such being the position, inasmuch Govinda pillai is found to have died prior to the advent of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, on his death, as per the law, then existing, it is seen that only his sons would be entitled to succeed to his property and accordingly, the Courts below have rightly held that his daughter Dhanapakkiam would not be entitled to succeed to the properties left behind Govinda pillai and such being the position, it is found that the plaintiff, as the son of Dhanapakkiam, would not be entitled to lay any claim of share in the suit property on the footing that he is one of the legal heirs of Govinda pillai, through his daughter Dhanapakkiam. Therefore, the plaintiff's mother Dhanapakkiam not having succeeded to the estate of Govinda pillai on his demise, the Courts below had rightly determined that the estate of Govinda pillai, on his demise, was succeeded by only his two sons namely Somasudaram pillai and Murugaiya pillai.
19. The share derived by the first defendant in the family properties of Govinda pillai is inclusive of the suit property. Murugaiya pillai having died in the year 1945, as rightly determined by the Courts below, on the advent of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, by virtue of Section 14(1) of the said Act, the right which the first defendant had over the suit property on the demise of her husband Murugaiya pillai, had blossomed into full and absolute right after 1956 Act and such being the position, it is found that as far as the first defendant is concerned, she has become the full owner of the share to which she is entitled to in the suit property as the legal heir of the Murugaiya pillai. However, it is contended by the counsel for the defendants 2 and 4 that inasmuch as the first defendant was not in the possession of the suit property as such, on the demise of Murugaiya pillai, as per Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, according to him, as she was not possessed of the property at the relevant point of time, she cannot be declared to be a lawful owner of the property by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Act and therefore, it is contended that she would not be entitled to a share in the suit property. However, the above contention does not merit acceptance. The property possessed by a female hindu for ripening into full estate by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 does not mean that she has to be in actual physical possession of the said property. On the other hand, it is seen that the expression Possessed as found in Section 14 would only mean and refer to a right to possession and not necessarily the actual or physical possession and accordingly, it is seen that so long as the Hindu female has a right to possession, her being not in physical possession matters very little and this position of law can be appreciated from the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 869 (Dr.Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs.Smt. Raj kumar Sharma and others) wherein the above position of law has been explained as follows:
Section 14 operates on its own force once the facts requisite for attracting its application are established. It must be remembered that the settlement between Satyawati and the first defendant was arrived at on January 27, 1955 whereas the Hindu Succession Act came into force in June, 1956, i.e., within less then seventeen months. Moreover, we are concerned with right to possession and not physical possession. It has been repeatedly held by this Court (See the several decisions referred to under the heading possessed meaning of in Mulla's Hindu Law (Sixteenth Edition at Page 810)) while constructing the expression possessed in Section 14 (1) that the said expression means and refers to a right to possession and not necessarily actual or physical possession. So long as she has a right to possession, the mere fact that the female Hindu was not in physical possession matters very little. Therefore, it is immaterial whether Satyawati was physically occupying the said first floor or not. So long as she had the right to possession over the said first floor, Section 14 (1) is attracted.
In the light of the above said determination of the Apex Court as regards the expression possessed in Section 14 (1), it is seen that the contention of the defendants' counsel that the right which the first defendant had over the properties concerned, prior to 1956 Act would not blossom into her estate as she had not been in the physical possession of the properties concerned as such, cannot at all be accepted. Further, the above contention also does not merit acceptance when it is found that the first defendant had been exercising ownership over the said properties as above seen by the executing the mortgage deed, by selling the family properties by way of Ex.A4 along with the other co-owners etc., It is seen that the first defendant cannot be stated to have been excluded from the right to possess the family properties inclusive of the suit property and such being the position, the contention putforth that the first defendant is not entitled to seek the benefit of Section 14 (1) of the Act, 1956, does not merit acceptance.
20. The defendants 2 and 4 have raised a plea that they and their predecessor in interest having enjoyed the suit property for a long and continuous period of time, exhibiting hostile animus to the knowledge of others beyond the statutory period, according to them, they had perfected title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. It is found that the first defendant as well as the third defendant are the co-owners of the suit property and when the plea of adverse possession putforth by the defendants 2 and 4 not having been substantiated by acceptable and reliable materials and when in particular, the above said plea of adverse possession presupposes the ousting the rights of the defendants 1 and 3 and when with reference to the said case, there is no material worth acceptance, as determined by the Courts below rightly, it is found that the plea of adverse possession projected by the defendants 2 and 4 cannot at all be believed as having been established. Such being the position, the Courts below had rightly, on proper reasons, based on the materials placed in the right perspective, rejected the plea of adverse possession projected by the defendants 2 and 4 and such being the position, the said determination of the Courts below does not merit challenge in this second appeal and the same cannot be construed as a substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal.
21. It is vehemently argued by the counsel appearing for the defendants 2 and 4 that on the date of the suit, the plaintiff having no cause of action at all to seek the partition in the suit property, as admittedly he cannot lay a claim of share in the suit property as a son of Dhanapakkiam, it is contended by him that the very basis of the suit for partition laid by the plaintiff being found to be untenable in the eyes of law, it is argued that the plaintiff has to be held not entitled to maintain the suit. In this connection, reliance is placed upon the decision reported in (2009) 9 SCC 689 (Shub Karan Bubna Alias Shub Karan Prasad Bubna Vs. Sita Saran Bubna and others). However, as rightly argued by the plaintiff's counsel, he has laid the suit claiming partition in the suit property, on the footing that he is also one of the legal heirs of Govinda pillai through his daughter Dhanapakkiam. However, when the materials disclose that Govinda pillai had died in the year 1940 itself, accordingly, it has been held by the Courts below that as per the law then existing, the daughter not entitled to claim any share, ultimately held that the plaintiff being the son of the daughter, would also not be entitled to claim any share in the suit property. On the above said determination of the Courts below, based on the materials placed during the course of trial, the Courts have negatived the plea of partition claimed by the plaintiff as the son of Dhanapakkiam. Such being the position, it cannot be straightaway concluded that the plaintiff cannot at all lay a claim of partition as the son of Dhanapakkiam who is admittedly the daughter of Govinda pillai and utmost it could only be held that on a wrong notion, the plaintiff has laid the suit for partition on the belief that he is also entitled to seek a share but when the materials placed during the course of trial only, it has come to be determined that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim a share in the suit property as the son of Dhanapakkiam, in view of the said position, it cannot be thereby held that the plaintiff had no cause of action at all to institute the suit. In such view of the matter, it is found that the contention putforth by the counsel for the defendants 2 and 4 that the plaintiff has no cause of action at all to lay the suit for partition cannot be appreciated as such.
22. During the pendency of the suit, it is found that the first defendant had died. The plaintiff claiming to be her legal heir had filed a memo which had come to be recorded by the Courts below. It is found that in O.S.No.135/69, the plaintiff had also raised a plea that he is the abimana puthiran of Somasundram pillai and entitled to individual right in family properties in that capacity. However, that plea having not been established by the plaintiff by acceptable materials in the said suit, the same was not accepted by the Court. However, the Court had permitted the plaintiff to seek his remedy with reference to the above said claim, if so advised. It is therefore seen that the plaintiff had been given the liberty to work out his remedy for claiming a share in the suit property on the above footing by way of a separate suit.
23. Pending suit the first defendant having died and she having been found to have derived a share in the suit property through her husband, accordingly, applying section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Courts below finding that the plaintiff is entitled to the half share in the share to which the first defendant would be entitled to held that in the total property, the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/4th share equivalent to 2/8th share. The above said findings of the Courts below invoking Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 for determining the share of the plaintiff in the suit property has not been shown to be erroneous or unsustainable and against law and therefore, no interference is called for as regards the above said determination of the Courts below. When it has been determined that the third defendant is also the legitimate daughter of Somasundaram pillai and the same has also been already confirmed in O.S.No.135/69, the Courts below have rightly held that she is also entitled to obtain a share in the suit property and accordingly holding that Somasundaram pillai and Murugaiya pillai would be each entitled to half share in the properties left behind by Govinda pillai and accordingly, determined that the third defendant is entitled to 3/8th share the defendants 2 and 4 are entitled to 3/8th share and the plaintiff is entitled to 2/8th share and accordingly, granted the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff. The above said determination of the shares of the respective parties by the Courts below has not been shown to be erroneous or incorrect and accordingly, it is found that the determination of the Courts below by fixing the share of the plaintiff and accordingly granting the preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff does not warrant interference. The Courts below are found to have analysed the materials placed on record in the right perspective, both factual and legal aspects and accordingly, correctly determined the issues involved in the matter and hence the judgment and decree of the Courts below do not warrant any interference.
24. In the light of the above discussions, the substantial question of law formulated in this second appeal is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 2 and 4.
25. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
23.01.2018 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No sli To
1. The Additional District Court, Nagapattinam.
2. The Principal Subordinate Court, Nagapattinam.
T.RAVINDRAN,J.
sli Pre-delivery Judgment in S. A.No.1704 of 2001 23.01.2018