Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Kerala High Court
Omana vs Denny Abraham George on 21 May, 2024
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
RFA NO. 296 OF 2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2008 IN OS NO.693 OF 2007
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT-II,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
OMANA,
W/O LATE LAKSHMANAN,
AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIMLA BHAVAN,
THANTHONNITHURUTHU,MULAVUKADU P.O.,
MULAVUKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.
SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
DENNY ABRAHAM GEORGE,
S/O ABRAHAM GEORGE,
AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANJIRAPPALLIL,
NJALKAMKARA, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, THRIKKAKARA NORTH
VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.
SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009
-:2:-
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------
R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009
-----------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The appeal on hand is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment passed by Sub Court, Ernakulam (for short 'the trial court') in O.S. No.693/2007.
2. Appellant is the defendant in the Suit against whom a decree for specific performance of the contract was passed by the trial court. The respondent in the appeal on hand is the plaintiff in the above Suit.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant in accordance with their status before the trial court.
4.The appellant in the appeal is the defendant. O.S. No. 693/2007 was filed by the plaintiff seeking for a decree for R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:3:- specific performance of an agreement for sale executed among himself and the defendant. As per the averments of the plaintiff in the plaint in the Original Suit, an agreement for sale of 10 cents of plaint schedule property, comprised in Survey Nos.402 and 401/2 of Mulavukad Village alongwith an old building situated there was entered among the parties on 19.09.2005 agreeing to sell those for a consideration of `68,500/- per cent. A sum of `1,50,000/- was paid as advance as on date of execution of the agreement for sale. It was averred in the plaint that the defendant could not perform the terms agreed to be performed by her as per the agreement for sale and therefore she requested the plaintiff for enlargement of the time period from three months stipulated therein and the plaintiff accepted the same. It was averred that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement for sale. It was also averred that the entire consideration for the proposed sale was also paid and the defendant accepted the same. Most of the payments have been made by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendant after the period of 3 months stipulated in the R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:4:- agreement for sale and that itself indicate that time was not the essence of the agreement for sale.
5. It is further averred in the plaint that `1,50,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration on the date of execution of the agreement itself, `30,000/- to the son of the defendant on 24.11.2006 as instructed by her, `1,50,000/- by cash and `2,50,000/- by account payee cheque respectively on 25.11.2006 and 21.012.2006. It was averred furthermore that the plaintiff was informed by the defendant and her son about their difficulty to shift from the property proposed to be sold, due to their inability to purchase a property and construct a building for residence, since the money paid by the plaintiff could not be fully utilised for that purpose and also paucity of funds. They jointly requested for a loan of `5,00,000/- in addition to the balance amount of `1,05,000/- outstanding towards sale consideration as per the agreement for sale.
6. The defendants convinced the plaintiff that the money was demanded to expedite the purchase of the property negotiated to purchase, construct a building therein for residential purpose and to shift thereto. The defendants agreed R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:5:- to execute the sale deed and also to pay back the loan availed with interest, within three months.
7. The plaintiff advanced `5,00,000/- to the defendant after borrowing money from his mother and sister on 24.01.2007. He paid the balance sale consideration of `1,05,000/- to the defendant from the money with him. The receipt of that was also endorsed on the original agreement for sale as was done in the case of receipt of money earlier. The defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite receipt of the sale consideration agreed by the agreement for sale and the loan amount of `5,00,000/- and therefore a registered notice was caused to be issued to the defendant on 21.04.2007, calling upon her to execute the sale deed and also to pay back the amount, `5,00,000/- received as loan with interest. Despite the receipt of the notice, a reply dated 25.07.2007 was sent by defendants 1 & 2 jointly raising vague contentions. Mediators were sent at the instance of defendants to the mother of the plaintiff on 15.05.2007 informing that the sale deed will be executed and the R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:6:- loan amount will be repaid within a month. The mother informed the plaintiff accordingly.
8. The defendant did not turn up to perform her part as per the agreement for sale and thus flouted the terms agreed. The plaintiff therefore was constrained to file the suit on hand and another one seeking to realise `5,00,000/- with interest and costs. Original Suit on hand was filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs :
"i) To pass a decree for specific performance of the Agreement for sale dated 19.09.2005, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed and to surrender possession of the plaint property to the plaintiff within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court, failing which the plaintiff be allowed to take the sale deed through court, allowing him to recover the plaint property from the defendant or persons claiming under her.
ii) To pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from inducting strangers into the plaint property or alter the present status of the same in any form or create any new encumbrance with respect to the plaint property or formulate any new fraudulent claim therein, so as to affect in any manner the specific performance of the contract in favour of the plaintiff.
iii) The plaintiff may be awarded his compensatory cost allowing him to recover the same from the assets of the defendant.R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:7:-
iv) To grant such other reliefs, which the plaintiff may ask for in the course of the proceedings and which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary to grant in the interest of justice and equity."
9. The defendant filed written statement totally denying the averments raised by the plaintiff in the plaint. The execution of a written agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 19.09.2005 is admitted. It was contended that extension of time was never sought by the defendant, that the plaintiff failed to fulfill his part of the obligation as per the agreement for sale since he was not having the required funds with him for paying the balance sale consideration, that his idea was only to find out buyers for more value than that was agreed with him, that the three months' time was agreed in the agreement for sale for execution of sale deed and therefore time was the essence of the contract, that her son never received `30,000/- on 24.11.2006 as averred in the plaint, that for the dealings her son had with the plaintiff she is not responsible, that she is admitting the receipt of money by her son only for the sake of repayment to the plaintiff, that those sums were not received by her towards balance sale R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:8:- consideration as per the terms agreed in the agreement for sale, that she does not own a property other than the one proposed to be sold as per the agreement for sale, that she entered into the agreement under the premise that the plaintiff would pay the entire sale consideration within three months from the date of execution of the agreement for sale and that strict compliance of the terms by the plaintiff was insisted by her since she had entered into an agreement with a third party for purchasing the latter's property and for constructing a house there. The plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration to fulfill his part of performance as contemplated by the agreement for sale and that caused the defendant to make requests on several occasions to pay the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed.
10. It was contended that the plaintiff was dragging the performance of the part to be performed by him as per the terms of the agreement for sale and that she was ready and willing always to perform her part as per the agreement for sale. The plaintiff was seeking time to pay the balance sale consideration for reasons best known to him. Due to laches and negligence on R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:9:- the part of the plaintiff, she could not raise or pay the balance sale consideration to purchase the property negotiated with another party and she was also made to face the threat from him to withdraw from the agreement for sale executed with him after paying `80,000/- as compensation. Thereafter, the land value has been raised 5 to 8 times. Thus the defendant was incapacitated to purchase a property in the locality. She has never borrowed `5,00,000/- from the plaintiff, that the plaint schedule property is the only item of property belongs to her, and that after expiry of three months fixed in the agreement for sale she is not liable to execute the sale deed.
11. Therefore the defendant admitted borrowal of `1,50,000/- and `2,50,000/- by her son from the plaintiff. According to her, those payments were not received by her towards balance sale consideration and that she was always ready and willing to repay the amount received by her son. According to the defendant, if the plaint schedule property is ordered to be sold in favour of the plaintiff, she will be homeless and thrown to the street. If the sale is ordered at the meagre R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:10:- price fixed by the agreement for sale, she would be prejudiced, and put to loss and irreparable injuries. Admittedly, notice issued by the plaintiff was received by her, and a reply was sent to him. According to her, there was no occasion when the defendant had sent mediators to the mother of the plaintiff to inform that the sale deed would be executed. The plaintiff was attempting to flout the terms of the agreement for sale and therefore he is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought in the Original Suit. The Original Suit therefore is only liable to be dismissed.
12. The plaintiff filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and was also cross examined by the defendant as PW1. In the proof affidavit filed the plaintiff had sworn to the entire aspects of his case in the Original Suit strictly in tune with the pleadings raised in the plaint. Exts.A1 to A10 were also marked in evidence. Ext.A1 is the agreement for sale dated 19.09.2005 proposing to sell the plaint schedule property measuring 10 cents, by the defendant to the plaintiff for a price of `68,500/- per cent. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the property within R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:11:- three months from 19.09.2005 and paid `1,50,000/- as advance sale consideration on the day itself.
13. It is pertinent to note from the pleadings of either parties and the evidence adduced on it's basis that the parties to Ext.A1 are attributing default to each other in performing the part to be performed as agreed to by the terms incorporated in Ext.A1.
14. As per Ext.A1 the total sale consideration for which ten cents of property belonging to the defendant was agreed to be sold is `6,85,000/-. It is recited in Ext.A1 that `1,50,000/- was paid by plaintiff to the defendant as part payment to the transaction of sale on 19.09.2005, the date on which Ext.A1 was executed by the parties. As per the terms in Ext.A1, the balance sale consideration is agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and the sale deed is agreed to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, within three months from 19.09.2005.
15. Therefore, the sale deed has to be executed by the defendant to the plaintiff within three months. Or in other words the parties have agreed the transaction of sale to be concluded R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:12:- and the sale deed to be executed in favour of the plaintiff within three months i.e the transaction ought to have been culminated in execution of sale deed in a time bound manner. Therefore, as the wordings of Ext.A1 stand, time was essence of the contract.
16. It is pertinent to note from the evidence tendered by the parties that they are attributing liability to each other for getting the three months fixed under Ext.A1, extended further. According to the plaintiff, time was sought to be extended by the defendant on account of her health issues. According to the plaintiff the defendant has fallen unhealthy due to rheumatism and therefore requested the plaintiff for extension of time for performance of her part as per Ext.A1. The defendant denied the above version of the plaintiff, but, plaintiff was unable to establish it. Therefore, the version tendered by the plaintiff is only to be discarded being devoid of merits.
17. Admittedly, application for getting encumbrance certificate as well as location sketch was laid by the plaintiff at Village Office, Mulavukad only on 27.12.2005 i.e. after 18.12.2005, on expiry of the three months' period on 18.12.2005 R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:13:- stipulated in Ext.A1 for execution of the sale deed. Therefore, every reason is there to convince this Court that the defendant who has to perform the part of handing over of the relevant documents relating to her title and possession failed to do so in a reasonable time, within three months from 19.09.2005. Application for obtaining the document itself was found made after three months from 19.09.2005 i.e the period within which the proposed transaction of sale was agreed to be completed and the sale deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, laches on the part of the defendant in performing her part of the contract to hand over the documents pertaining to the property and thereby to convince the plaintiff of her title and possession of the property proposed to be sold, its extent and that it is free from all sort of liabilities. As per Ext.A1, only when the plaintiff is convinced of the above, he is bound to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant and the defendant, to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff.
R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009-:14:-
18. According to PW1, he had paid the entire sale consideration as agreed to in Ext.A1 to the defendant. According to him, `1,50,000/- was paid on 19.09.2005, on the date of execution of Ext.A1 itself. `30,000/- was paid to the son of the defendant as requested by her on 24.11.2006. `1,50,000/- was paid in cash and `2,50,000/- by way of account payee cheque to the son of the defendant as directed by her. The balance of `1,05,000/- due towards sale consideration was also paid on 24.01.2007. According to PW1, on the basis of repeated demands made by the defendant to his mother and sister, they also advanced `5,00,000/- as loan to him on 24.01.2007. According to PW1 endorsements were made on Ext.A1 at the relevant time when amounts have been given as aforesaid and the defendant has put her signature as well as thumb impression underneath the endorsements.
19. When the plaintiff was cross examined by the defendant, a suggestion was put that most of the amounts dealt with in the endorsements were not given by the plaintiff to the defendant but only to her son towards some other transactions R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:15:- he had with the plaintiff. As DW1, the defendant has also stated that cash worth `30,000/- and `1,50,000/- have also been paid by the plaintiff to her son. An account payee cheque was also given for `2,50,000/-and it was got encashed by the son of the defendant through her account. Therefore, the defendant has taken a specific stand that full sale consideration has not been paid by the plaintiff to her and for that reason, she failed to execute the sale deed within the time period agreed in Ext.A1. The question relevant for consideration in the context is whether time was essence of contract as per Ext.A1. Plaintiff averred that it was, whereas the defendant, it was not. According to the plaintiff, if time was essence of Ext.A1, after getting the balance sale consideration, the defendant would have obtained the documents pertaining to the plaint schedule property and handed over those to the defendant in time so as to make him convince that she has valid title over the property and it is free from liabilities.
20. It is clear from Ext.A1 that the period fixed for execution of contract was three months from 19.09.2005. Therefore the reciprocal promises agreed to be performed as per R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:16:- Ext.A1 have to be performed by the parties on or before 18.12.2005. It has been stated by the defendant as DW1 that she had applied for obtaining the documents pertaining to the property proposed to be sold only on 27.12.2005. Therefore, it is convinced therefrom that the defendant had delayed the performance of her part as per Ext.A1, which she ought to have performed within the time so as to enable the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration to her.
21. In the case on hand application for obtaining the documents was made only on 27.12.2005, itself shows that the defendant himself had delayed performing his part as per Ext.A1. According to PW1, the defendant approached him and sought for extension of six months more for execution of the sale deed and it was extended till 15.06.2006. Thereafter the defendant approached him again for extension stating that she developed some rheumatic problems. Therefore, time was further extended from 16.06.2006 till 31.12.2006. According to PW1, despite the expiry of the period extended as above on consensus, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed.
R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009-:17:-
22. According to the defendant, the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration as agreed and therefore, that the sale deed was not executed by him in his favour. According to her, it was the plaintiff who failed to perform his part as per Ext.A1 and therefore, being at fault, a decree for specific performance of contract is not liable to be granted in his favour.
23. Admittedly of the defendant, the application to obtain the documents pertaining to the plaint schedule property itself was made after three months, agreed for execution of the sale deed. As per Ext.A1, the defendant was obliged to get all the relevant documents pertaining to the property proposed for sale immediately on executing it and receiving the advance sale consideration. As DW1, the defendant has admitted receipt of `1,50,000/- as advance sale consideration from the plaintiff on 19.09.2005, the date of execution of Ext.A1 itself. As per Ext.A1, the defendant has to perform her further part. But she failed to do so. Defendant had taken a stand that payments were received by Mr.Anil Kumar, her son. But according to PW1, endorsements were made on Ext.A1 at the time when payments R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:18:- were made by him and below that signature and thumb impression of the defendant were also obtained.
24. During cross examination the endorsements, signatures and thumb impression were shown to DW1 and she did not disown those, rather admitted. She had taken a specific contention that the cheque given for `2,50,000/- was encashed and availed by her son without her knowledge. But, admittedly it was an account payee cheque and therefore, it could only be encashed through her account and the money would only be credited into her account. It cannot be availed by the son without her knowledge. Moreover, the specific case of the defendant during examination was that her son has been authorised by her to do things on her behalf.
25. As already stated the balance sale consideration was paid at different points of time and the endorsements regarding those made overleaf Ext.A1 substantiate those. The signature and thumb impression allegedly put by the defendant were not denied by her. Therefore, it is established that payments made by the plaintiff towards balance sale consideration even after the R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:19:- period stipulated for execution of the sale deed has been received by the defendant. It is indicated from the above discussions that the time period stipulated in Ext.A1 for performance was extended at the instance of the defendant and that the payments made belatedly by the plaintiff were also received by her. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that time was of essence of Ext.A1 is only to be discarded, being devoid of merits. It has been held by the Apex Court in Swarnam Ramachandran (Smt) and Another v. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan [2004 (8) SCC 689] relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that time is not presumed to be essence of conveyance of immovable property and the burden of proving whether time was the essence is upon the person alleging that, and the opposite side has to rebut it and if he fails to do so, the court is bound to accept the plea of the party raising that time was not essence of the contract.
26. It has been further held in the case that the real test to determine that question of fact is the intention of the parties to the contract and it is the duty of the court to examine the real R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:20:- intention of the party giving a notice stating that time is essence of the contract, by looking at the facts and circumstances of the case. In Gomathinayagam Pillai and others V. Palaniswami Nadar [ AIR 1967 SC 868], it was held by the Apex Court as follows:
"When a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time, or certain things at or before specified times, and fails to do any such thing at or before the specified time, the contract, or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promise if the intention of the parties was that time should be of the essence of the contract".
"Fixation of the period within which the contract is to be performed does not make the stipulation as to time of the essence of the contract. It is true that appellants 1 & 2 were badly in need of money, but they had secured Rs.3006/- from the respondent and had presumably tide over their difficulties at least temporarily. There is no evidence that when the respondent did not advance the full consideration they made other arrangements for securing funds for their immediate needs. Intention to make time of the essence of the contract may be evidenced by either express stipulations or by circumstances which are sufficiently strong to displace the ordinary presumption that in a contract of sale of land stipulations as to time R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:21:- are not of the essence. In the present case there is no express stipulation, and the circumstances are not such as to indicate that it was the intention of the parties that time was intended to be of the essence of the contract. It is true that even if time was not originally of the essence, the appellants could by notice served upon the respondent call upon him to take the conveyance within the time fixed and intimate that in default of compliance with the requisition the contract will be treated as cancelled."
27. The discussion hereinabove made would point out that the intentions of the parties has to be gathered from the express words used in the contract, the nature of the property which forms the subject matter of the contract, the nature of the contract itself and the surrounding circumstances.
28. In the case on hand Execution of Ext.A1 is not disputed by the parties to it. It is nothing but an agreement for sale incorporating the reciprocal promises from either parties and those are required to be performed by them in turn. The party who failed to perform her turn after receiving the advance sale consideration is none other than the defendant and it is established from the circumstances of the case. The defendant is R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:22:- found to have accepted the payments made by the plaintiff towards balance sale consideration. Therefore, the defendant cannot be heard to contend that the parties to Ext.A1 had intended to treat time as essence of contract. Moreover, being an agreement for conveyance of immovable property, time will not generally form essence of contract. The argument of the learned counsel that time was essence of contract and for not keeping the terms in Ext.A1 by not performing his part in time, the plaintiff is not entitled to have obtained the decree of specific performance is only to be repelled and this Court do so.
29. The defendant had taken a specific argument that for want of plea with reference to readiness and willingness of plaintiff in the plaint and proof regarding that, the suit for specific performance is only to fail and the trial court ought not to have granted a decree of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff.
30. Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is relevant to be extracted hereunder:-
"16. Personal bars to relief.--
Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person--
(a) xx xx R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:23:- (b) xx xx (c) who fails to aver and prove that he has
performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant."
(emphasis supplied)
31. What is to be pleaded was specifically mentioned in the portion emphasized thereunder. In the case on hand the plaintiff's stand was that the entire sale consideration was paid by him and by adducing cogent and reliable evidence he had established that. He had examined PW2 and PW3 and thus adduced reliable evidence to establish that the money was availed from them for paying the balance sale consideration. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 being creditworthy were also relied on by the trial court and took a view that they had advanced money to the plaintiff to meet the payment of money towards balance sale consideration.
32. When the balance sale consideration was received by the defendant, it is for him to execute the sale deed. Despite oral R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:24:- demands and a written demand by a lawyer notice issued on 19.04.2007 he failed to execute it in favour of the plaintiff. On the contrary, he sent a reply notice raising untenable contentions.
33. The learned counsel for the defendant urged that the defendant was an illiterate lady and the money paid by the plaintiff were not received by her, but only by her son and therefore, being a discretionary relief, this Court has to exercise the discretion vested on it, in favour of the defendant. According to him, the defendant was not holding any other property than the one under consideration and the consideration agreed being only meagre when considered in the backdrop of the passage of a long time, the prejudice caused to the defendant has also to be looked into.
34. It may be that the defendant is an illiterate lady. But, as she admits during examination as DW1, her son was entrusted to act in the proposed transaction of sale for and on her behalf, she cannot deny receipt of money by him towards balance sale consideration. When she has permitted her son to act on her R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:25:- behalf in the transaction of sale, evenif the money was taken as received by her son as alleged by her, she cannot take the excuse of prejudice thereby. It was also established from the evidence available that the defendant has another property. Moreover, her allegation that she has suffered loss on account of the delayed payment of money by the plaintiff in a different transaction where she has agreed to purchase a property is not established by evidence. What is available is only a contention taken in that regard.
35. Apart from the above, the plaintiff has also established by evidence as PW1 that he had purchased some property at the behest of the defendant, to form courtyard to the plaint schedule property on the latter's promise to sell it to him. Plaintiff has also produced and marked the title deed executed in respect of the property as well as the receipt evidencing payment of property tax for that property respectively marked in evidence as Ext.A3 & A4.
36. Therefore, this is a case where the plaintiff has successfully proved before the trial court that he had paid the R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009 -:26:- entire sale consideration agreed by Ext.A1. He has also established that the defendant has received the entire sale consideration for him as agreed in Ext.A1. Therefore, the part remained to be performed is to arrange for execution of the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff is found to have suffered more hardships compared to that of the defendant and for that reason itself this Court finds it appropriate to exercise the discretion in the matter of grant of a decree for specific performance in his favour.
37. The trial court has appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and found that the plaintiff has every right to get the decree for specific performance in his favour. The trial court has exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. This Court being the appellate court is not empowered to exercise the discretion on sound principles of law enumerated under the Specific Relief Act, in a different manner. The appeal is only to be dismissed.
R.F.A. No. 296 of 2009-:27:-
In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree is confirmed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE.
ttb/JJ