Sartaj And Another vs Ayub Khan
2019 Latest Caselaw 5429 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 52
 
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 260 of 1992
 
Appellant :- Sartaj And Another
 
Respondent :- Ayub Khan
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vipin Saxena
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.K.Verma,A.R.Gupta,K.C. Pushkar Pandey.,Krishna Chandra Pushkar
 

 
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

1. The present second appeal has been filed against impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.1991 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Etah in Civil Appeal No.92 of 1989 (Ayub Khan Vs. Sartaj and others), by which the lower appellate court by allowing appeal and setting aside judgment and decree dated 17.7.1989 passed by 4th Additional Munsif, Etah in Civil Suit No.467 of 1986 (Sartaj Vs. Ayub Khan), dismissed plaintiffs' suit. Feeling aggrieved plaintiffs have preferred this appeal which was admitted vide order dated 4.2.1992 on following two substantial questions of law framed by this Court:-

"(i) whether the Additional Civil Judge had not at all considered the material issues involved in the case and based his judgment on irrelevant considerations.

(ii) whether the Additional Civil Judge had committed illegality in rejecting the admitted facts on which depended the decision of the case."

2. At the time of hearing parties' counsel in appeal one more substantial question of law found to arise in the second appeal and was framed as under:-

(iii) whether the Additional Civil Judge was correct in holding that there was no mutual mistake for rectification in the impugned sale deed.

3. The brief facts relating to the case are that appellants filed Civil Suit No.467 of 1986 with the allegations that plaintiffs purchased property land Khasra No.843-A and 843-B area 0.20 acre from defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3 Sri Jodha son of Sri Govind and Smt. Jal Devi daughter of Smt. Ram Devi on 19.12.1985 by registered sale deed for valuable consideration of Rs.2,000/- but due to inadvertent clerical mistake and misunderstanding of scribe, in the sale deed in question, executed by Jodha and Jal Devi, defendant nos.2 & 3 by putting their thumb impressions, names of their father and mother, Sri Govind father of Sri Jodha and Smt. Ram Devi mother of Smt. Jal Devi were wrongly mentioned as vendors in place of Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi and taking undue advantage of above mutual/clerical mistake defendant no.1 Ayub Khan obtained a sale deed from Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi in his favour on 6.3.1986. The following reliefs sought in the plaint are for issuing of (a) a decree for rectification of sale deed dated 19.12.1985 for writing names Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi as vendors in place of names of Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi, (b) a decree for cancellation of sale deed dated 6.3.1986 allegedly obtained by defendant no.1 from defendant nos.2 & 3 in respect of property in suit and (c) a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiffs over the property in suit. In written statement filed by contesting defendant no.1 Ayub Khan in paras 1, 2 & 3 of written statement it was admitted that Sri Govind father of Sri Jodha and Smt. Ganga Devi @ Ram Devi mother of Smt. Jal Devi, were previous owners of land in suit and Sri Govind died about 10 years back while Smt. Ganga Devi @ Ram Devi died about 12 years back, leaving behind them Sri Jodha son of Govind and Smt. Jal Devi daughter of Smt. Ganga Devi @ Ram Devi as their only legal heirs.

4. The trial court framed following five issues on parties' pleadings viz.

(i) Whether sale deed dated 19.12.1985 is liable to be rectified?

(ii) Whether sale deed dated 6.3.1986 is liable to be cancelled?

(iii) Whether suit is barred by provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act?

(iv) Whether suit is under valued and Court fees paid is insufficient? and

(v) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?

5. Apart from disputed sale deeds, copy of extract of Khatauni, reports of handwriting and finger print expert by both parties were filed as documentary evidence. The plaintiffs produced Sri C.K. Jauhari, Finger Print and Hand Writing Expert as P.W.-1, Sri Safi Alam as P.W.-2, Sri Jodha son of Govind as P.W.-3 and Sartaj-plaintiff as P.W.-4 while defendant no.1 produced Noor Alam Khan as D.W.-1 and Ayub Khan himself as D.W.-2. After hearing parties' counsel and analyzing the evidence on record, the trial court in its findings on issue no.1 came to the conclusion that sale deed dated 19.12.1985 was executed by defendant nos.2 & 3 Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi and the sale deed is liable to be rectified as prayed and passed (i) a decree for rectification of sale deed dated 19.12.1985, (ii) a decree for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.3.1986 as well as (iii) a decree for permanent injunction against defendants. Feeling aggrieved the defendant no.1 Ayub Khan preferred Civil Appeal No.92 of 1989 before District Judge, Etah which was transferred for disposal to Additional Civil Judge, Etah and was allowed by impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit of plaintiffs by setting aside judgment and decree passed by trial court. Hence the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

6. Heard Sri Vipin Saxena, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Anant Ram Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for appellants contended that lower appellate court acted wrongly and illegally in not considering the undisputed/admitted facts on record and material issues involved in the case and misappreciated the evidence on irrelevant considerations; that it was not only proved rather was admitted to the defendant-respondent no.1 Ayub Khan that Govind and Maiku were original tenure holders of land in suit and after death of Maiku his share in land in dispute devolved on his wife Smt. Ganga Devi @ Ram Devi and after death of Govind his share in land in disputed devolved on his son Sri Jodha defendant-respondent no.2 and on death of Smt. Ganga Devi @ Ram Devi her share in land in dispute devolved on her daughter Smt. Jal Devi defendant-respondent no.3; that after mutation of their names in revenue records in respect of land in suit, they executed disputed sale deed dated 19.12.1985 in favour of plaintiff-appellants; that it is admitted to defendant-respondent no.1 Ayub Khan that Govind and Smt. Ganga Devi @ Ram Devi had died about 10 & 12 years back respectively and so the question of execution of sale deed by them, the dead persons neither arose nor was possible; that lower appellate court has acted wrongly in misguiding itself by relying on the fact that stamp paper for execution of impugned sale deed dated 19.12.1985 was purchased in the name of Sri Govind; that it was fully proved from the evidence on record that identity of vendor was mistaken by scribe on account of not looking over mutation entry on right side margin over copy of extract of Khatauni, and so at the time of purchase of stamp name of original tenure holder was wrongly mentioned in place of name of Sri Jodha and same mistake was repeated, due to which the sale deed executed by defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3 was also wrongly scribed in the name of dead persons as vendors, over which thumb impressions were put by Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3 respectively, but over their thumb impressions (due to repetition of above inadvertent mistake) names of Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi were wrongly mentioned; that both parties to the sale deed dated 19.12.1985 were of real intention that sale deed in respect of land in dispute is being executed by Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi, defendant-respondent nos.1 & 2 as vendors in favour of plaintiffs-appellants Sartaj and Sher Zaman Khan as vendors; that lower appellate court acted wrongly and illegally in ignoring the admitted facts; that judgment and decree passed by lower appellate court are based on wrong, illegal, arbitrary and perverse findings which are based on surmises and conjectures; that since impugned sale deed dated 6.3.1986 in favour of defendant Ayub Khan is not only in respect of disputed plot Khasra No.843 but also in respect of other plot numbers 907 & 910, the appellants do not seek cancellation of sale deed dated 6.3.1986 as a whole or in respect of land plot nos.907 & 910.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant-respondent Ayub Khan supported the impugned judgment and decree and contended that Section 26 of Specific Relief Act provides for rectification of an instrument through fraud or mutual mistake of parties and since there is no allegation of fraud and no mistake of parties so the relief of rectification may not be granted; that in any case sale deed dated 6.3.1986 executed by defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3 in favour of defendant no.1 Ayub Khan is in respect of their respective shares in plot Khasra No.843, 907 & 910 so even if the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs prevails upon rectification of sale deed dated 19.12.1985, the sale deed dated 6.3.1986 in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of plot Khasra Nos.907 & 910 may not be cancelled.

9. Upon hearing parties learned counsel and perusal of record as well as lower court record, I find that facts of the case are not disputed to the extent that plot Khasra nos.843-A & B originally belonged to Sri Govind and Smt. Ganga Devi @ Ram Devi wife of Maiku which devolved on Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3 being son of Sri Govind and daughter of Smt. Ram Devi respectively and after mutation of their names in revenue records, they transferred the same and executed a registered sale deed dated 19.12.1985 in favour of plaintiffs-appellants Sartaj and Sher Zaman Khan. It is clear from the evidence on record that without looking at mutation entry on right side margin on copy of extract of Khatauni, purchase of general stamps for sale deed was wrongly made in the name of Govind deceased in place of his son Sri Jodha and consequently sale deed dated 19.12.1985 was also scribed in the names of Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi (dead persons) instead of Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi and over the thumb impressions put by Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi over the sale deed, names of Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi were mentioned/transcribed by inadvertent and mutual mistake of scribe and thereafter in office of Sub-Registrar, when sale deed was presented by Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi for registration, the same mistake was repeated under the wrong impression by presuming them to be Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi respectively. The uncontroverted report of handwriting and finger print expert duly proved by P.W.-1 also states that disputed thumb impressions over the impugned sale deed dated 19.12.1985 are identical to admitted thumb impressions of Smt. Jal Devi and Sri Jodha, the defendant nos.2 & 3.

10. It is pertinent to mention that in passing the impugned judgment and decree, dismissing suit of plaintiff lower appellate court has placed reliance on the fact that stamp paper of the impugned sale deed was also purchased in the name of Sri Govind, without considering that it was admitted to defendant that Sri Govind had died long ago. and further failed to consider that stamp could not have been purchased in the name of dead person. The defendant-respondent no.1 in para 1 of his written statement dated 19.3.1987 has specifically stated that Sri Govind and Smt. Ganga Devi @ Ram Devi were original tenure holders and co-sharers to the extent of equal shares in plot Khasra No.843-A & 843-B apart from which defendant no.3 Smt. Jal Devi had also 1/6th share in plot Khasra Nos.907 & 910. In para 2 he has stated that Govind died about 10 years back and it is admitted that his son Sri Jodha is his legal heir whose name has been mutated in place of Sri Govind in revenue records. In para 3 he has stated that Smt. Ganga Devi died about 12 years back and Smt. Jal Devi is her legal heir.

11. It is human nature that if a mistake occurs at one place, it gets repeated at subsequent places. The evidence on record shows that since due to above advertent mutual mistake and mistaken identity of defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3, name of Sri Govind was mentioned at the time of purchase of requisite stamp paper for execution of impugned sale deed in place of Sri Jodha and the same mistake was repeated again and again. The above mistake could not be noticed due to wrong assumption and so could not be corrected and consequently in the impugned sale deed executed by Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi, defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3 at every place and even over their thumb impressions, names of dead persons Sri Govind and Sri Ram Devi respectively were wrongly mentioned, pretending the execution of sale deed by Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi, who were not alive on the date.

12. It is undisputed that impugned sale deed dated 19.12.1985 was executed by Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi and they presented it for registration before Sub-Registrar and accepted receipt of sale consideration and execution of sale deed before him, but on account repeatition of same mistake name of Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi was mentioned at every place instead of names of Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi. Since admittedly Sri Govind and Smt. Jal Devi were not alive at the time of execution of impugned sale deed dated 19.12.1985, the sale deed could not have been executed by them under any stretch of imagination. There is no case by defendant-respondent no.1, that impugned sale deed dated 19.12.1985 was obtained through impersonations. Moreover there can be no intention of either party to sale deed (vendor or vendee) to deliberately get the names of dead persons mentioned as vendors in place of defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3. Trom above admitted facts and evidence on record it is crystal clear that it was a case of mutual clerical mistake on account of which in the impugned sale deeds executed by defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3 Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi names of their predecessors (who were not alive) were wrongly mentioned as vendors. It also clearly shows that real intentions of parties to sale deed was to sell property in dispute by Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi in favour of plaintiff-appellants.

13. It is pertinent to mention that Sri Jodha, defendant-respondent no.2 was examined as D.W.-3 wherein he admitted thumb impressions of himself and of Smt. Jal Devi on the disputed sale deed dated 19.12.1985 while Smt. Jal Devi, defendant-respondent no.3 was examined by trial court on 21.8.1987 under provisions of Order X Rule 2 of C.P.C. wherein she stated that sale deed in question was executed by her and Sri Jodha and since they are illiterate, names of their predecessors Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi were mentioned in place of their names due to mistake, without any intention.

14. The lower appellate court has referred to following case laws which were relied by defendant-respondent no.1, the appellant in First Appeal No.92 of 1989 (i) AIR 1957 Assam 49 'Santi Ranjan Das Gupta Vs. Dasuram Mirzamal Firm', (ii) AIR 1956 Orissa 83 'Bidyadhar Mohanty and another Vs. Ananta Hota and another', (iii) AIR 1921 Calcutta 730 'Bepin Krishna Ray and others Vs. Jogeshwar Ray and others' and (iv) AIR 1958 Rajasthan 276.

15. In the case of Bepin Krishna Ray and others Vs. Jogeshwar Ray and others (supra) (relied by respondent no.1 before lower appellate court) a decree for rectification was passed by trial court on account of mistake in description of property in the mortgage deed as well as decree also, and the appeal filed by defendant was dismissed with costs, by Division Bench of High Court Calcutta upholding the correctness of judgment and decree passed by subordinate court. The above decision fully supports the case of plaintiffs-appellants and lower appellate court taken absolutely wrong, illegal and perverse view in rejecting plaintiffs-appellants claim by placing reliance on above case law. The findings of lower appellate court in holding that there was no mutual mistake are absolutely wrong, illegal and perverse also.

16. In another case of Bidyadhar Mohanty and another Vs. Ananta Hota and another (supra), (relied by respondent no.1 before lower appellate court), in a suit for declaration of title and possession it was held that plaintiff was not under an obligation to seek rectification of the sale deed and court itself can grant the relief by way of putting him in possession. The facts of above case are entirely different from the case in hand and lower appellate court acted wrongly and perversely in allowing the first appeal of respondent by placing reliance on this case, which has no application to the case in hand.

17. Above decisions are prior in time to the replacement of old Act by new Specific Relief Act, 1963 and refers to provision of Section 31 of old Act relating to rectification of sale deed.

18. It is very unfortunate that without considering the law laid down in above decisions and their applicability to the facts of this case, the lower appellate court has taken a highly wrong and illegal view, adverse to plaintiff-appellant. The lower appellate court misguided itself by mentioning of names of Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi at every place as vendors in holding that there was no mutual mistake. Since it was proved rather admitted to defendant-respondent no.1 that Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi were not alive as on 19.12.1985 at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs-appellants, the lower appellate court erred in not considering the execution of sale deed by dead persons was impossible and it was a clear case of mutual mistake between the parties to sale deed who were of clear and true intention that plot Khasra No.843 was being sold by Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3 in favour of plaintiffs-appellants. Since Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi were not alive and the parties to sale-deed were illiterate, they were not aware of the mistake committed by scribe in mentioning names of dead persons Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi as vendors while sale deed was executed by Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi, defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3.

19. It is pertinent to mention that Specific Relief Act, 1877 (hereinafter referred to as 'old Act') was replaced by Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'new Act') and the provisions with regard to rectification of instrument which were contained in Section 31 of old Specific Relief Act, 1877 were mentioned in corresponding Section 26 of new Specific Relief Act, 1963.

20. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1977 and corresponding Section 26 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 regarding rectification of instrument:-

Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1877:-

"31. When instrument may be rectified- When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, a contract, or other instrument in writing, does not truly express their intention, either party or his representative-in-interest, may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified; that if the Court finds it clearly proved that there has been fraud or mistake in framing the instrument, and ascertain the real intention of the parties in executing the same, the Court may, in its discretion, rectify the instrument so as to express that intention, so far as this can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value.

Section 26 of Specific Relief Act, 1963:-

"26. When instrument may be rectified.--

(1) When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, a contract or other instrument in writing [not being the articles of association of a company to which the Companies Act, 1956 applies] does not express their real intention, then--

(a) either party or his representative-in-interest may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified; or

(b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue, claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified; or

(c) a defendant in any such suit as is referred to in clause (b), may, in addition to any other defence open to him, ask for rectification of the instrument.

(2) If, in any suit in which a contract or other instrument is sought to be rectified under sub-section (1), the court finds that the instrument, through fraud or mistake, does not express the real intention of the parties, the court may, in its discretion, direct rectification of the instrument so as to express that intention, so far as this can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value.

(3) A contract in writing may first be rectified, and then if the party claiming rectification has so prayed in his pleading and the court thinks fit, may be specifically enforced.

(4) No relief for the rectification of an instrument shall be granted to any party under this section unless it has been specifically claimed."

21. From perusal of above mentioned provisions of Section 31 of old Act of 1877 and corresponding Section 26 of new Act of 1963 it is very much clear that scope of rectification of instruments has been made wider by the legislature under new Act and rectification of an instrument may be permitted when through fraud or a mutual mistake of parties, a contract or other instrument in writing does not express their real intention. As far as mutual mistake is concerned it has been interpreted as under:-

"If a mistake is averred, as the ground for the rectification of a contract, or instrument in writing, the evidence must prove a mistake common to all the parties, that is, -

(i) a common intention different from the expressed intention, and

(ii) a common mistaken supposition that it is rightly expressed.

There is no mistake as to what was agreed, but the mistake is in the expression of the agreement in writing. If there were a mistake in the agreement itself, that would preclude a consensus ad idem, and no contract would be formed, and there would be nothing to rectify the instrument."

22. It was held by Division Bench of Privy Council in the case of M/s. Siddique and Co. v. M/s. Utoomal and Assudamal Co., AIR1946 PC 42, that:-

"In a suit for rectification of a contract or instrument, the plaintiff must prove that it was through a mutual mistake of the parties, or their agent, or otherwise that the contract for instrument in question did not truly express the intention of the parties, and the court, before it can rectify the contract or instrument, must-

(1) find it clearly proved that there has been mistake in framing the instrument, and

(2) ascertain the real intention of the parties in executing the instrument. It is only when the court is satisfied of these two elements, that it can, in the exercise of its discretion, grant rectification."

23. In the case of Bepin Krishna Ray Vs. Jogeshwar Ray, AIR 1921 (Calcutta) 730, it was held by Division Bench that the party seeking rectification must clearly prove-

(1) there was a prior complete agreement, which

(2) according to the common intention was embodied in writing, but

(3) by reason of the mistake in framing the writing,

(4) the writing did not express, or give effect to, the agreement.

24. The Madras High Court in the case of Natarajan Asari Vs. Pichamuthu Asari, AIR 1972 (Madras) 192, that in a suit rectification of an instrument-

"it must clearly and satisfactorily appear that-

(1) the precise terms of the contract had been orally agreed upon; and

(2) the writing afterwards signed failed to be, as it was intended, an execution of such previous agreement, but, on the contrary, expressed a different contract.

The mistake may be either as to the contents, or the effect, of the instrument, but it must be a mistake of both parties, in regard to the same matter.

Where the vendor was owner of only western portion of a house and both parties, vendor and vendee, intended that to be transferred but by mistake the sale deed recited Eastern portion on the property sold, it was a case of mutual mistake and suit for rectification was maintainable."

25. In the case in hand there is no whisper of fraud by either party to the impugned sale deed dated 19.12.1985. It is also noteworthy that where mistake is proved as a fact, in a case of rectification, the plaintiffs negligence cannot be pleaded as a bar to relief.

26. It is crystal clear from the undisputed/admitted facts and evidence on record that there was a prior contract between Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi on one side (first party) and Sri Sartaj and Sher Jaman Khan on the other (second party), according to which there was a prior complete agreement with common intention between the parties that land plot Khasra No.843-A and 843-B belonging to Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi, the defendant-respondent nos.2 & 3, (devolved upon them on death of their father and mother Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi, respectively), is to be sold by them in favour of Sartaj and Sher Jaman Khan through registered sale deed and in furtherance of their common intention, the impugned sale deed dated 19.12.1985 was reduced into writing/executed by Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi in favour of plaintiffs-appellants but due to mutual mistake at the time of framing and reducing the sale deed in writing, in place of vendors Sri Jodha and Smt. Jal Devi, names of their predecessors Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi were wrongly mentioned. Admittedly Sri Govind and Smt. Ram Devi were not alive at that time, and the impugned sale deed did not express real/correct intention of contract which did take place between the parties mentioned above.

27. In view of the discussions made above, I find that the precise terms of contract of sale had been orally agreed between plaintiff-defendants no.2 & 3 but due to mutual mistake as mentioned above the sale deed which was reduced into writing and registered did not express real intent of parties to contract of instrument in question. I am of the considered view that (i) the Additional Civil Judge, lower appellate court did not at all consider the material issues involved in the case and based its judgment on irrelevant considerations and findings recorded by it are wrong, illegal and perverse, (ii) the Additional Civil Judge, lower appellate court committed illegality in rejecting the admitted facts by misreading and misappreciating the evidence on record and its decision with arbitrary and perverse findings is based on surmises and conjectures and (iii) Additional Civil Judge/lower appellate court acted wrongly, illegally and perversely in holding that there was no mutual mistake between parties to impugned sale deed dated 19.12.1985.

28. I am of the considered view that lower appellate court has acted wrongly, illegally, arbitrarily and perversely in allowing the appeal in toto and dismissing the suit of plaintiffs.

29. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made above, the appeal is liable to be allowed, the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.1991 passed by lower appellate court of Additional Civil Judge, Etah in Appeal No.92 of 1989 are liable to be set-aside and judgment and decree passed by trial court are liable to be restored.

30. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs throughout. The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.1991 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Etah in Civil Appeal No.92 of 1989 (Ayub Khan Vs. Sartaj and others) are set-aside and the judgment and decree dated 17.7.1987 passed by trial court i.e. VIth Additional Munsif, Etah in Civil Suit No.467 of 1987 stands restored with the modification that impugned sale deed dated 6.3.1986 in favour of defendant-respondent no.1 Ayub Khan as per particulars given in the judgment and decree dated 17.7.1989 stands cancelled only to the extent of and in respect of plot Khasra No.843 and stands valid in respect of other plot nos.907 & 910.

31. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

32. Let lower court record be sent back to court below along with a copy of this judgment for necessary compliance, if any.

Order Date :- 2.7.2019

Kpy