Sh.K.J.Arora, Proprietor M/S ... vs M/S Cama Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
2010 Latest Caselaw 204 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         Judgment Reserved on: 08.1.2010
%                       Judgment Delivered on: 15.1.2010

+                     CS(OS) No.3164/1996

       SH. K.J.ARORA,
       PROPRIETOR M/S ARORA & ASSOCIATES
                              ...........Plaintiff
                         Through: Mr. Abhinav Vashisht and
                                  Mr.Sumit Singh Benipal,
                                  Advs. for the plaintiff.

                      Versus


        M/S CAMA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.
                              ..............Defendant
                        Through: (Ex parte)

                      CS(OS) No. 3165/1996

       SHRI K. J. ARORA
       PROPRIETOR M/S ARORA & ASSOCIATES
                              ...........Plaintiff
                         Through: Mr. Abhinav Vashisht and
                                  Mr.Sumit Singh Benipal,
                                  Advs. for the plaintiff.

                      Versus


       AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD.
                              ..........Defendant.
                         Through: Mr. Mudit Sharma, Adv.
                                  for the defendant.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
       the judgment?

    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?              Yes


CS(OS) Nos.3164-3165/1996                   Page 1 of 21
      3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. By this common judgment (i) CS(OS) No.3164/1996 titled as

Sh. K.J.Arora proprietor M/s Arora & Associates Vs. M/s Cama

Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and (ii) CS(OS) No.3165/1996 titled Sh.K.J.

Arora proprietor M/s Arora & Associates Vs. M/s American

Express Bank shall be disposed off. Vide order dated 22.4.2004

passed in Suit no.3164/1996 both the suits had been ordered to be

tagged together.

2. Plaintiff K.J.Arora proprietor of M/s Arora & Associates has

filed two suits for the recovery of Rs.26,92,924/- from each of the

two defendants in the respective suits. This amount includes the

outstanding finder‟s fee in sum of Rs.16,74,000/- and interest @

22% per annum from 24.2.1994 to 30.11.1996 i.e. in the sum of

Rs.10,18,924/-, totalling the aforestated figure.

3. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff was carrying on

business under the name and style of Arora & Associates of finding

for fee, buyers, prospective sellers and lessors, prospective lessees

of immovable property i.e. in his capacity as a broker and charging

a brokerage fee.

4. Defendant of Suit No. 3165/96 i.e. the American Express

Bank in or around December 1993 approached the plaintiff

through its travel related services department to find for them a

suitable premises in New Delhi having a minimum area of 1,30,000

sq. feet for the purpose of shifting its offices.

5. Plaintiff was professionally engaged by the defendant of Suit

No. 3164/96 i.e. M/s Cama Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.( hereinafter

referred to as CAMA) to introduce a tenant for its property located

at A-37, Main Mathura Road, now known as Mohan Cooperative

Industrial Area, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the "said

property") which was under construction at the said time.

6. Plaintiff informed the defendant i.e. the American Express

Bank that it was in a position to negotiate on their behalf in

respect of the said property for the purpose of their tenancy on its

usual business terms for such letting namely at a fee equivalent to

one month‟s rent and if a security deposit is payable in addition to

the rental, at a fee equivalent to 1% of such deposit in addition to

the fee payable on the rental. On their approval, the plaintiff

introduced the representative of CAMA to the representatives of

the American Express Bank and negotiations were held between

them from time to time.

7. On 15.12.1993 CAMA issued a letter to the plaintiff setting

out the terms and conditions on which the CAMA was willing to let

out the said property to the American Express Bank. Pursuant

thereto on 16.12.1993 a memorandum of understanding was

executed between the American Express Bank and CAMA wherein

it has been mentioned that this deal had been done through the

efforts of M/s Arora Associates having their office in 429, World

Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi i.e. the plaintiff. In terms of

this memorandum CAMA agreed to let out this property to the

Bank at a rent of Rs.13,50,000/- per month and a security deposit

of Rs.3.24 crores. The defendant i.e. the American Express Bank

even as on date is occupying the said property.

8. Plaintiff has prayed that the agreed professional/finder‟s fee

of Rs.16,74,000/- detailed above be paid to him from each of the

two defendants i.e. CAMA and American Express Bank which

compromises of one month rent of Rs.13,50,000/- and

Rs.3,24,000/- as 1% of the security deposit as the entire

transaction between CAMA and the American Express Bank had

matured through the efforts of the plaintiff. Decree for the

aforestated amount as also interest @ 22% per annum till the date

of the filing of the suit from 24.2.1994 up to 30.11.1996

comprising of Rs.10,18,924/- has been prayed for; pendentelite

interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree

with future interest @ 22% per annum has also been prayed in

each of the two suits.

9. In Suit No. 3164/96 defendant i.e. CAMA was served by

publication. Since none had appeared for the defendant he was

proceeded ex parte on 11.11.1999. Ex parte evidence was filed by

plaintiff in the said suit.

10. Written statement filed by the defendant in Suit No. 3165/96

has denied the liability. It is stated that even as per the case of the

plaintiff the memorandum of understanding relied upon by the

plaintiff is a document executed between CAMA and the American

Express Bank where the plaintiff is not a party; the suit is bad for

mis-joinder of parties as CAMA has not been impleaded who is also

a necessary party. It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to any

finder‟s fee; it is stated that there was no such agreement to the

said effect; there is no contract between the parties.

11. On merits, it is submitted that the American Expression

Bank had sometime in August 1993 through its travel telated

services advertised in the „Hindustan Times‟ inviting offers from

landlords for real estate to be used for office purposes. On

3.8.1983 some responses were received by the defendant which

included an offer made by the plaintiff who had offered three sites

but which did not include the disputed property. It is submitted

that the offer letter does not speak of any commission or

brokerage in its terms and conditions; defendant had not

specifically engaged the plaintiff to locate any space; no finder‟s

fee much less the quantum of the finder‟s fee had been agreed to

between the parties.

12. On 09.11.1993 Rajesh Arora, Chief Executive of M/s Arora &

Associates i.e. the plaintiff had sent an unsolicited offer to the

defendant offering him an independent building under

construction @ Rs.12 per sq. feet; subsequently a letter dated

14.12.1993 had been written to the answering defendant by CAMA

giving details of the disputed property whereby CAMA had

expressed its willingness and authorized the plaintiff to negotiate

on their behalf to rent out the disputed property @ Rs.12 per sq.

feet and negotiate other terms; however, this letter did not speak

of any terms between CAMA and the plaintiff and nor any terms

with the answering defendant.

13. It is submitted that the memorandum of understanding dated

16.12.1993 was not a memorandum of understanding in any sense

of its term; it only stipulated the intention of CAMA to lease out

the premises; party no.2 i.e. the defendant had neither accepted

the offer nor the terms thereof; this document had only been

received on behalf of the defendant; no commitment and

acceptance on behalf of the defendant had been created by this

document.

14. It is stated that this deal finally did not mature through the

plaintiff as the owner of the property i.e CAMA backed out of the

same. In spite of efforts of the answering defendant to bring them

to the negotiating table the matter was dropped and no further

efforts were made to progress the deal; matter was deemed as

closed. Subsequently certain other offers were forthcoming. In

January 1994 an offer was received from Mr. Surender Arora of

419, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, K.G. Marg, New Delhi offering premises

A-37, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road i.e. the

same premises which the plaintiff had offered and in respect of

which the negotiations had fallen apart. In this offer of 10.1.1993

Mr.Surender Arora gave details of the premises as also the terms

and stated that the charges for their services rendered will be

equal to one month‟s rent. Thereafter a formal lease was executed

between CAMA and the defendant i.e. American Express Bank on

28.1.1994 through the efforts of Mr. Surender Arora.

15. It is submitted that on 1.2.1994, the plaintiff had offered

another premises i.e. the premises no.A-36, Mathura Road along

with a letter from M/s Tirath Ram Ahuja Ltd., the owner of the

said property. In this offer also the plaintiff had not mentioned

any terms of their brokerage/commission or finder‟s fee which

they had agreed to accept from the answering defendant.

16. It is submitted that from this letter dated 1.2.1994 it was

clear that the plaintiff had abandoned efforts to get the deal in

respect of A-37, Mathura Road finalized and he had resorted to

offering another fresh deal in respect of property A-36, Mathura

Road; it is thus clear that there was no concluded contract

between the parties.

17. It is further submitted that because of the inability of the

plaintiff to progress the deal with regard to this disputed property

the defendant had to pay 50% more for taking the same premises

on lease through the efforts of another person. The present suit is

misconceived and malafide. Plaintiff is not entitled to any amount,

suit be dismissed.

18. Replication had been filed by the plaintiff reiterating the

averments made in the plaint and denying the submission and the

defence as set up by the defendant.

19. On 13.11.2000 on the pleadings of the parties, the following

issues were framed in Suit No. 3165/96:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of

Rs.26,92,924/- as claimed in the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest

@22% p.a. on Rs.26,92,924/-? OPP

3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-

joinder of the parties? OPD

4. Whether the agreement dated 16th December,

1993 is a valid document between the parties?

OPD

5. Relief.

20. Arguments have been heard and appreciated. Record

including the documents of both the suits i.e. Suit No. 3165/1996

and Suit No 3164/1996 have been perused. Ex parte evidence by

way of affidavit has been filed in suit no.3164/1996. Issues were

framed in Suit No.3165/1996. Findings are as follows:

21. ISSUE NO.3 :-

22. Two independent suits had been filed by the plaintiff against

the lessor and the lessee of the property namely CAMA who is the

owner of the suit property and American Express Bank who is the

lesee in the said property. Plaintiff has set up two independent

causes of action against both the respective defendants and had

filed two separate suits against the said two defendants. Both the

suits have been ordered to be tagged together vide order dated

22.4.2004. The suits being based on two independent causes of

action, the absence of either defendant would not preclude the

plaintiff from pressing his claim against the other. There is no non-

joinder of parties. Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff

and against the defendant.

23. ISSUE NOs.1 & 4

24. Both the issues are co-related and will be decided by a

common discussion.

25. In suit No.3164/1996 the defendant is ex parte. The

averments made in the plaint of the suit No.3164/1996 are

identical with the averments made in the suit No.3165/96. The

amounts claimed are also identical. Defendant in suit

No.3164/1996 is the landlord of the said property which was the

subject matter of the lease to the American Express Bank i.e. the

lessee and the defendant in suit No.3165/1996.

26. Plaintiff in both the suits has filed his affidavit in evidence

and has reiterated the averments made in the plaint on oath in

Court.

27. In Suit No.3165/1996 on oath the plaintiff has proved the

advertisement dated 1.8.1993 which had appeared in the

Hindustan Times. Ex.P-1 is the said document; this is an

advertisement of the American Express Bank seeking requirement

of office space for their organization; in response thereto the

plaintiff vide Ex.P-2 i.e. the letter dated 3.8.1993 had responded

and offered three different accommodations for the said purpose

but which did not include the disputed property. On 09.11.1993

vide Ex.P-3 plaintiff again wrote to the American Express Bank

offering an independent building under construction on a corner

plot of Main Mathura Road; however, further details of the said

building did not find mention in the said letter.

28. It is clear that up to this date i.e. upto 9.11.1993 there is no

documentary evidence exchanged between the plaintiff and the

American Express Bank or with CAMA whereby the plaintiff had

initiated the proposal for leasing out the disputed property owned

by CAMA to the Bank as a prospective lessee.

29. On oath, it has been reiterated by the plaintiff that verbally

he had been informed by CAMA to introduce a tenant for its

property located at A-37, Main Mathura Road, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Area, New Delhi which was under construction at that

time; keeping in mind the requirement of the American Express

Bank and the suitability of the location the plaintiff informed the

bank that it was in a position to negotiate on their behalf in

respect of this property on its usual business terms i.e. at a fee

equivalent to one month‟s rent and if a security deposit is payable

in addition to the rental, at a fee equivalent to 1% of such deposit

in addition to the fee payable on the rental. This was admittedly a

verbal communication.

30. On 15.12.1993 i.e. Ex.P-4 CAMA the owner of the said

property issued to the plaintiff a letter setting out the terms and

conditions on which the CAMA was willing to let out the said

property to the American Express Bank. Ex.P-4 is a letter

addressed by Rajan Thakural managing director of Cama

Automobiles to the plaintiff setting out the proposal to lease out its

property comprising of a total area of 1,35,000 sq. feet on the

lower ground floor, ground floor, upper ground floor and first floor

at a proposed rental of Rs.12 per sq. feet per month with a

security deposit of six month interest free rental. This document is

clearly a proposal only.

31. On 16.12.1993 vide Ex.P-5 a memorandum of understanding

was purported to have been executed by CAMA through its

managing director Rajan Thukral on one hand and American

Express Bank Ltd. through Ramit Nagpal on the other hand. This

document has been relied upon heavily by the plaintiff to establish

his claim that this was a memorandum of understanding executed

between CAMA and American Express Bank mentioning therein

that this deal has been done through the efforts of the plaintiff i.e.

the M/s Arora & Associates having its office in 429, World Trade

Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi. The plaintiff having thus

completed his job of having introduced the lessor and the lessee

with one another which deal finally came to be finalized in terms

of the agreement to lease out this property dated 28.1.1994, it is

clear that the plaintiff became entitled for his commission/finder‟s

fee from both the parties i.e. from CAMA as also the American

Express Bank.

32. Perusal of Ex.P-5 shows that this is an untitled document; it

has been confirmed and accepted for Cama Automobiles by Rajan

Thukral but on behalf of the American Express Bank, it has been

received by Ramit Nagpal. The very fact that American Express

Bank had only received the document clearly shows the intention

of the Bank; the intention being that the parties were yet to

negotiate a final deal; this document Ex.P-5 was an offer given by

CAMA to the American Express Bank wherein party no.1 i.e.

CAMA had spelt out the proposal therein. The fact that this is not

a memorandum of understanding is clear from the document itself;

the second last paragraph of which reads as under :-

"The payment of the24 months deposit will be done in 2 installments i.e. 4 months deposit will be paid immediately on signing of the MOU and the balance

will be paid on party no.1 on handing over the building complete in all respects i.e. June 1, 1994."

33. This document recites that the memorandum of

understanding was yet to come into effect which would be signed

after the requisite amounts were paid; language of this document

speaks for itself; Ex.P-5 was only the confirmation of the earlier

proposal which CAMA had addressed to the plaintiff vide Ex.P-4

i.e. the communication dated 15.12.1993. Ex.P-5 was not a

contract; memorandum of understanding was yet to be executed

between the lesser and the lessee; it has also been admitted by

PW-1 in his cross examination that in this document there is no

mention that it is a memorandum of understanding.

34. In his cross-examination PW-1 had admitted that if a party

wants to have office space on lease the same is located by them on

a fee which is charged for providing this service which is called a

finder‟s fee; it has been clarified that services are provided for

locating of the space till the finalization of the deal;

brokerage/commission and finder‟s fee is the same thing and

there is no statutory provision for the same in India; party always

pays for services rendered irrespective of the statutory provisions.

PW-1 has admitted that finder‟s fee is a matter of contract which

may be either verbal or oral; it is at a pre-settled rate; it is

admitted that Ex.P-2 i.e. the letter dated 3.8.1993 written by the

plaintiff to the American Express Bank offering proposals for

accommodation for lease for the purposes of office space did not

include the disputed property i.e. the property at A-37, Main

Mathura Road, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, New Delhi.

35. PW-1 in his cross-examination has further admitted that

there was no written contract with the American Express Bank for

the finder‟s fee; he has admitted that "it is correct that commission

is paid only on the finalization of the deal".

36. No other evidence was adduced by the plaintiff.

37. The defendant has produced one witness in defence. He is

C.V.Raghu. He has reiterated the averments made by the

defendant in his written statement. The defence of the American

Express Bank was that the same property i.e. A-37, Main Mathura

Road, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, New Delhi had been

taken on lease from its owner i.e. M/s CAma Automobiles through

another broker namely Surender Arora who addressed a letter

dated 10.1.1994 mark D-1 to American Express Bank offering the

said accommodation for lease. On 28.1.1994 mark D-2 was an

agreement entered into between the lessor and the lessee of the

said property i.e. between CAMA and Americann Express Bank

pursuant to which a formal lease deed was drawn up between the

parties on 19.10.1995. On oath, it has been stated that the

plaintiff was unable to finalize the deal as he had failed to provide

the documents concerning the title deed of the premises.

Surender Arora had offered the same property at a rental of Rs.15

per sq. feet per month which was the agreed rental between the

parties and was more than the rent of Rs.10 per sq. feet per month

offered by the plaintiff. On oath DW-1 has stated that the

commission equivalent to one month‟s rent was paid to Surender

Arora for getting this deal finalized. In his cross-examination, DW-

1 has admitted that normally brokerage paid to a broker by the

bank is based upon the negotiation between the bank and the

broker; the rate of the commission agreed between Bank and

CAMA was to pay one month rental by each to the broker

Surender Arora which amount has since been paid by the

American Express Bank.

38. From this evidence which has been adduced both oral and

documentary; it is amply clear that the plaintiff was not in a

position to get the deal finalized between the CAMA and American

Express Bank in relation to the disputed property. The bank had

taken the same property from CAMA yet this deal was finalized not

by the plaintiff but through the services of Surender Arora. Ex.

P-5 was a communication exchanged between CAMA and

American Express Bank and was only a proposal which had been

given by CAMA to the bank offering its premises through the

services of the plaintiff to the bank. This deal, however, could not

be finalized as the plaintiff could not produce the requisite

documents. Plaintiff in his cross-examination has clearly admitted

that it is only on the finalization of the deal that the finder‟s fee

becomes payable. This deal had admittedly not been finalized

through him. The fact that it had fallen through is also evident

from the subsequent letter dated 31.1.1994 Ex.P-6 which is a

letter addressed by the plaintiff to the American Express Travel

i.e. the travel services of the bank whereby another adjoining

property of the Main Mathura Road had been offered to the bank

for consideration of their lease proposal. Along with this letter the

authority letter of the owner of the said property had also been

enclosed. This document shows that on 31.1.1994 the plaintiff had

offered another property on Main Mathura to the American

Express Bank; the deal for the earlier property had obviously not

come through that is why the second property was being offered.

However, on 28.1.1994 mark D-2 had already been endorsed i.e.

an agreement between CAMA and the American Express Bank

whereby American Express Bank had agreed to take on lease the

property owned by CAMA i.s. A-37, Main Mathura Road, Mohan

Co-operative Industrial Area, New Delhi and this was through the

services of Surender Arora. Letter dated 10.1.1994 mark D-1 was

the letter written by Surender Arora to American Express Bank

offering his services to get this property leased out in favour of the

bank.

39. This was the status in Suit No.3165/1996.

40. In suit No.3164/96 letter dated 15.12.1993 written by CAMA

to the plaintiff has been exhibited as P-1; the memorandum of

understanding purported to have been executed between CAMA

and American Express Bank has been proved as Ex.P-2. On

22.1.1994, the plaintiff wrote to CAMA pressing for its dues vide

its letter Ex.P-3; legal notice dated 22.3.1994 and 9.4.1994 Ex.P-4

& Ex.P-5 were duly received by the defendant namely CAMA; reply

to the said legal notice is dated 5.3.1994 Ex.P-6 wherein CAMA

denied its liability alleging that no contract had been concluded

between the parties and in fact the deal had fallen through as

Ramit Nagpal who had received the document dated 16.12.1993

i.e. Ex.P-2 had not authority on behalf of the American Express

Bank.

41. In 2004 (113) DLT 161 Association of Property Consultants vs.

DDA the job of a proper broker has been described as a

"professional activity" being individualised inasmuch as it is based

on his personal skill and expertise; he rendering his professional

services for which he is remunerated by way of a commission.

42. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon AIR 1928

Bombay 270 Vasanji Moolji vs. Karsondas Tejpal, (1922) 24 Bom LR

847 K.C. Mehta vs. Cassumbhai Keshavji, AIR 1930 All 545 Roopji

and sons vs. Dyer Meaken and Co. Ltd. to substitantate his

argument that once a broker has found a party who was willing to

advance the money to the borrower, once he had put it in the

borrower's power to obtain the loan, he had done all that which his

appointment necessitated thus entitling him to his commission. On

the same parameters, it is submitted that in the instant case as well

the plaintiff had done all that was within his powers and having

introduced the lessor and lessee of the property to one another so

much so that a written proposal detailing the terms of the proposed

lease had been spelt out in the communication dated 15.12.1993

Ex.P-4 which was the letter addressed by CAMA to the plaintiff and

the subsequent document dated 16.12.1993 Ex.P-5 had recognised

the efforts of the plaintiff in bringing the lessor and lessee together

and thereafter the lease having been executed for the same

property and between the same parties, it was a clear case where

the plaintiff had become entitled to his finder's fee/commission.

43. As already held supra this Court has concluded that there was

no contract between the parties and the document dated

16.12.1993 Ex.P-5 was not a memorandum of understanding,

memorandum of understanding was yet to be signed between the

lessor and the lesse; this document was only at the stage of a

proposal. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the

plaintiff are all distinct on their own facts and do not apply to the

factual matrix of this case. All the said three cases related to a loan

transaction between a borrower and the lender where in all cases

there was a written document/exchange of communication

executed between the parties recognising the services of the

plaintiff therein i.e. agent/broker who had introduced the borrower

and the lender with one another and concluded their transaction.

As rightly pointed by learned counsel for the defendant in a

transaction between a borrower and the lender there could be a

single/ sole agent; not so in the case where a property has to be

leased out and where proposals are offered both to the lessor and

to the lessee by several brokers/ commission agents. It is only on

the finalisation of the deal with anyone of the said

brokers/commission agents that the said person becomes entitled

to his finder's fee/commission. There is no doubt to the proposition

that the finder's fee/commission becomes payable to the broker

once it is recognised that it was through his effective services that

the transaction had concluded.

44. This is not so in the instant case, the deal had fallen through

in this case primarily for the reason that the plaintiff was unable to

supply the requisite documents to the American Express Bank as

has been admitted by defendant no.1 in his cross-examination. In

K.C. Mehta's case (supra) it has been held that a broker in order to

be entitled to his commission must prove either that the transaction

has been completed or that the non-completion was not due to

default on the part of the principal.

45. In AIR 1950 SCR 30 Abdula Ahmed Vs. Animendra Kissen

Mitter, the Supreme Court, on the facts of the said case had held

that the plaintiff was entitled to the commission as the sale in that

case was in fact concluded by him, entitling him to earn his

commission. Relying upon the decision of the House of Lords in

Luxor (East Bourne) Ltd. vs. Cooper, the Supreme Court had with

approval noted-

"The ground of decision in the Luzor's case was that where commission was made payable on the completion of the transaction, the agent's right to commission was "a purely contingent right" and arose only when the purchase materialized. As Lord Simon put it" The agent is promised a reward in return for an event and the event and the event has not happened,

46. These observations of the Supreme Court reinforce the

finding of this Court that it is only when the transaction

materializes or is finally concluded with the efforts and

intervention of the commission agent that he becomes entitled

to the commission.

47. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

plaintiff reported as AIR 1933 NULL 784 Khurshed Alam vs. Asa Ram

is based on the proposition that the plaintiff is entitled to

commission if he is proved to have acted as a broker; even in the

absence of evidence a reasonable amount ought to be awarded to

him as commission; in that case it had been held to be 2% of the

sale transaction. This proposition does not come to the aid of the

plaintiff as this Court has already concluded that the plaintiff had

not transacted the deal between the lessor and the lessee thus

disentitling to him for any commission.

48. Issue nos.1 and 4 are decided against the plaintiff and in

favour of the defendant.

49. ISSUE NO.2

50. Issue nos.1 and 4 disentitle the plaintiff to recover any

amount. This issue is also decided against the plaintiff and in

favour of the defendant.

51. ISSUE NO.5 :-

52. Both the suits are dismissed. No orders as to costs. Decree

sheet be drawn. File be consigned to record room.

                                         (INDERMEET KAUR)
JANUARY 15, 2010                               JUDGE
nandan