Delhi High Court
Vikram Kaushik And Anr vs Vivek Kaushik on 10 February, 2015
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on :03.02.2015
Judgment delivered on :10.02.2015
CS(OS) 1848/2009
+ CS(OS) 1848/2009
VIKRAM KAUSHIK AND ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through Mr. Sunil Aggarwal and Mr.
Arjun Mitra, Advs.
versus
VIVEK KAUSHIK ..... Defendant
Through Mr. Joydeep Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 The present suit is a suit for partition. It has been filed by the
plaintiffs Vikram Kaushik and Jyotsna Kaushik. Defendant Vivek
Kaushik is their brother. The immovable properties which are the
subject matter of the present suit are - (i) L-19, Lajpat Nagar-III,
Delhi-110024; (ii) Flat No.1402, Marathon Galaxy-I, L.B.S. Marg,
Mulund, Mumbai and (iii) Agricultural land in two pieces comprising
of about 10 acres each in village and post office Shedawan, District
Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the suit
property).
2 The parties to the suit are legal heirs of deceased Hem Chandra
Kaushik who had died intestate on 10.8.2008 leaving behind three
Class-I heirs i.e. the two plaintiffs and the defendant. His wife had
predeceased him on 15.11.1997. Contention is that the superstructure
which has been erected in L-19, Lajpat Nagr-III, New Delhi consists of
a basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The second floor
is vacant which is under the constructive possession of the parties. The
basement and the ground floor are in occupation of the defendant. The
first floor is under tenancy. Rent of the first floor at Rs.50,000/- is being
received by the defendant. The second floor had also been let out at
monthly rental of Rs.30,000/- per month. The flat in Mumbai is a two
bedroom, one hall, one kitchen with a super area of 978 sq. feets. The
third property i.e. the agricultural in Bulandshahar inherited by late Sh.
Hem Chandra Kaushik by virtue of a Will executed by his father Late
Sh. Kishore Lal Sharma.
3 Plaintiffs in spite of repeated requests seeking a partition of
family properties have been left answered. Present suit has accordingly
been filed seeking a relief of partition as also rendition of accounts.
4 Written statement was filed by the contesting defendant. His
submission is that the property at Lajpat Nagar is in his actual physical
possession. The plaintiff no.1 is in occupation of the flat at Mumbai. At
the time of marriage of plaintiff no.2 being the only daughter of the
deceased she was given a huge fortune in order that she could purchase
her own accommodation. She had purchased a flat in Dr.Mukherjee
Nagar, Delhi and the money for the purchase of this property had been
paid by their father. Contention of the defendant is that the parties had
arrived at an oral family settlement by virtue of which the right in the
Mumbai property had fallen to the share of plaintiff no.1. There was a
flat in Dwarka which has also been purchased from the funds of the
plaintiff which also fell to the share of plaintiff no.1 and which purchase
had been financed by the deceased with an agreement that the balance
installment will be paid by plaintiff no.1. Submission is that in terms of
this oral family settlement, which had been arrived at and acted upon
between the parties, the present suit is not maintainable. It is liable to be
dismissed.
5 On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed.
They read herein as under:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the suit
properties bearing Nos.L-19, Lajpat Nagar-III, Delhi-24, Flat no.1402,
Marathon Galazy-I, LBS Marg, Mulund, Mumbai and agricultural land
in two pieces comprising of about 10 acre each in Village and Post
Office Shedawan, district Bulandshahar, (UP)? OPP
(2) Whether the aforesaid properties were orally partitioned during the
lifetime of one Sh.H.C.Kaushik, who is the father of the parties herein?
OPD
(3) Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11
(b)/(c) CPC? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts from the
defendant, if so, to what effect? OPD
(5) Relief.
6 The onus to discharge the issues was initially on the plaintiff;
thereafter this order was modified and in terms of the order dated
13.12.2011 the defendant was directed to lead evidence in the first
instance.
7 Eight witnesses were examined by the defendant. The plaintiff
has examined one witness. Issue-wise findings are as under:
8 Both these issues will be decided by a common discussion.
Admittedly, there are three suit properties i.e. L-19, Lajpat Nagar-III,
Delhi-24, Flat no.1402, Marathon Galazy-I, LBS Marg, Mulund,
Mumbai and agricultural land in two pieces comprising of about 10
acre each in Village and Post Office Shedawan, district Bulandshahar,
U.P.
9 The father of the parties Hem Chand Kaushik had died intestate.
He had left behind three Class-1 heirs i.e. two plaintiffs and the
defendant. His wife had predeceased him.
10 The onus to discharge the issues was placed upon the defendant.
This was vide order dated 13.12.2011.
11 The defence of the defendant is that the suit properties already
stood partitioned in terms of an oral settlement which had been arrived
at during the lifetime of the father of the parties. This was pursuant to
discussion which had taken place in the intervening period of Dewali
2003 and Holi of 2004. To support this stand the defendant has
produced nine witnesses of whom DW-1 is the defendant himself.
DW-2 (Chhaya Sharma) is the paternal aunt (Bua) of the parties. Stand
of the defendant being that DW-2 was closely connected with the family
affairs of the parties and it was pursuant to discussions with her and her
husband that the father of the parties had decided to give the Lajpat
Nagar property to defendant no.1; the Mumbai flat was to fall to the
share of plaintiff no.1; the land at Bulanshahar, U.P. was agreed to be
divided half and half between plaintiff no.l and defendant no.1; however
since plaintiff no.1was not showing any interest in the Bulandshahar
property it had been decided that he may either opt for the Bulandshahar
property or he may opt for the rights over the second floor in the Lajpat
Nagar property without the roof rights. Contention being that plaintiff
no.2 at the time of her marriage had got a huge fortune; out of which
money the property at Mukherjee Nagar had been purchased by her
husband, for this reason the plaintiff no.2 is not entitled to any further
share in the aforenoted properties. This was in terms of their family
arrangement. His further contention was that the entire superstructure in
the suit property at Lajpat Nagar was out of the funds and money which
had been paid by him; the property had been constructed in the year
2004 during the lifetime of their father (who had died on 10.8.2008)
since it had already been agreed that property at Lajpat Nagar would fall
to the share of defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 had spent money on
its construction.
12 Defendant had entered into the witness box ad DW-1 and
reiterated all these averments on oath. The bills/receipts pertaining to
acquiring building material, fittings and fixtures affixed at the Lajpat
Nagar property had been proved collectively as Ex.DW-1/3 (colly).
The municipal corporation receipt substantiating his averment that he
was living in the Lajpat Nagar was marked as Mark A-1. Submission
being reiterated on oath that the oral family settlement had in fact been
acknowledged by the other siblings namely plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff
no.2. He proved his statement of account as Ex.DW-1/6 and Ex.DW-
1/7. In his cross-examination he admitted that he is a diploma holder in
export management and had taken training at the Central Institute of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and at Fragrance and Flavours
Development Corporation, Kannauj, U.P. He used to help farmers; he
was paying income tax since 1990. He was taking rent of the Lajpat
Nagar property but this rental income was not reflected in his income
tax returns till the time of the death of his father but thereafter the same
was being reflected in his returns. In the next line he countered this
submission by stating that he in fact is taking this rent w.e.f. 2006;
(father of the parties died in August 2008). Statement of the witness on
this score is thus contrary as in one part of his statement he has stated
that he was taking rent of the Lajpat Nagar property and which was
being reflected in his income tax return only after the death of his father
and prior to that his father was taking the rent but later part of his
statement stated that that he was taking rent of the Lajpat Nagar property
even during the lifetime of his father. He admitted that the amount spent
on the reconstruction of the Lajpat Nagar property would be about Rs.40
to Rs.50 lacs. He denied the suggestion that money was spent by his
father. His contention was that the entire money was spent by him but
the same was not reflected by him in his income tax returns. Further
contention being that he had saved this money while he was working in
Moscow. He had worked in Moscow between 1993 to the year 2000;
his savings in Moscow were in cash; he had sent the same through
Mr.Ravindra Kumar Tiwari and Mr.Ravindra Mamgain to India. He
used to carry cash even when he used to come Delhi. None of this has
been proved by documentary evidence. Mr.Ravindra Kumar Tiwari
and Mr.Ravindra Mamgain have not come into witness box to
substantiate this version of DW-1. In fact, defendant no.1 who was
initially working in „Gopal Zarda‟ was thrown out of the firm in the year
1998; in this intervening period he was making intermittent trips to
Moscow but he did not progress financially even there. He was
unemployed after 1998. Defendant and his family were residing with
their father in Lajpat Nagar. In these circumstances he had undertaken to
carry out the reconstruction of the Lajpat Nagar property through the
funds of his father as he did not have any funds of his own. The
documentary evidence in this regard i.e. the statement of account of
Hem Chandra Kaushik at the ICICI Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch and
income tax returns (Ex.DW-1/6 and Ex.DW-1/7) reflected his rental
income from the first floor and the second floor of the Lajpat Nagar
property apart from his agricultural income from his land at
Bulandshahar which was admittedly tax free. This document
establishes the stand of the plaintiff that the father of the parties namely
Hem Chandra Kaushik had sufficient funds in his account to carry out
the re-construction of his property which was done in the year 2004
when he was alive. Contention of defendant no.1 that he had funded
this projected has not been established by any documentary evidence.
Ex.DW-1/3 which a colly of receipts produced by DW-1 to establish his
stand that he had paid for the building material and for the fittings and
fixtures at the Lajpat Nagar property is not borne out from these
documents. Apart from the fact that there is only one invoice for
Rs.12,900/- for a submersible pump dated 15.3.2005 in the name of
defendant no.1 (issued by Aquatech Engineers), other paper slips placed
on record are just hand written papers; in whose hand writing these slips
had been prepared and they related to which part of fittings and fixtures
which were allegedly fixed at Lajpat Nagar property are wholly
undecipherable. What the defendant had to established was that the
money for these fittings and fixtures had been paid out of his own
personal funds. Admittedly, the defendant was living with his father. He
was a senior citizen; in his early 80s at the time when this reconstruction
project was undertaken Hem Chandra Kaushik had sufficient funds to
re-construct the property whereas defendant no.1 has failed to show
from any documentary evidence that it was he who had funded this
project. In fact he candidly admitted that he did not reflect these
expenses in his income tax return. He admittedly had no source of
income as although he was working in Gopal Zarda in Delhi, his salary
being low, to earn some extra income he was flitting between Delhi and
Moscow between 1993 to 2000. Ultimately, he lost his job in the year
1998. There is no evidence to show that DW-1 thereafter was re-
employed in any other job. He also did not visit Moscow after 2000.
He was a M.Com. He had taken training at an Institute at Kanauj, U.P.
for training of farmers but what was his source of income to fund the
project, which according to him was to the tune of Rs.40 - 50 lacs has
not been explained or answered.
13 DW-6 Pawan Gupta, the owner of Fair Deal Corporation had
entered into the witness box to support the stand of the plaintiff on this
count. His submission was that in the year 2004-2005 M/s Fair Deal
Corporation had supplied sanitary and hardware goods to Vivek
Kaushik and payment had been received from him. In his cross-
examination, he admitted that he does not remember if he had issued
any invoices. He admitted that five bills are in his handwriting which
are in the sum of Rs273/-, Rs.10,006/-,Rs.392/-, Rs.22,070/- and
Rs.8,755/-. He did not have the original of the bills. They must be with
the defendant. These bills did not see the light of the day. Testimony
of DW-5 Gaurav Virmani, the architect who had planned this
redevelopment/reconstruction of the Lajpat Nagar property is also
relevant. His testimony has been highlighted. His version only
discloses that he was the architect who had prepared the drawings and
plans for this property. He admitted that MCD drawings were in the
name of the father of the defendant i.e. Hem Chandra Kaushik and the
submitted plans were also signed by the owner i.e. Hem Chandra
Kaushik. Vivek Kaushik i.e. the defendant had accompanied him. He
admitted that he only had a professional relationship with the defendant
and he does not know what was the settlement arrived at between the
parties and which property has fallen to which person. Testimony of
this witness also does not in any manner support the stand of the
defendant that it was he who had funded the project at Lajpat Nagar. In
fact, DW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that three water
meters were installed in the property after its reconstruction. He
admitted that these water meters were installed in the name of their
father Hem Chandra Kaushik. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has
rightly pointed out that if this property had already fallen to the share of
defendant in terms of the oral family settlement why the water meters
were installed in the name of their father has not been explained by him.
This was obviously for the reason that there appears to be no family
settlement which had been arrived at between the parties. DW-1 had
also admitted that the property continues to stand in the name of his
father and he had not informed any authority that this property has fallen
to his share.
14 Testimony of PW-1 is also relevant in this context. His
submission was that this property of Lajpat Nagar was owned by their
father Hem Chandra Kaushik and this property comprised of the
basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor; being the elder son
defendant no.1 was living with their father and he had an opportunity to
misappropriate the property papers of their father. Plaintiff no.1 was
living in Bombay and plaintiff no.2 was married. Further averment of
PW-1 was that the basement and ground floor was in occupation of the
defendant where their father was also residing. The first floor was in
occupation of a tenant and the second floor had also initially been let out
to a tenant and thereafter after the demise of their father the rent was
being collected by defendant no.1 from both the tenants. A sum of
Rs.20-25 lacs had been spent on redevelopment of the property which
was from the funds of their father Hem Chandra Kaushik. Contention
being that the deceased had a continuous tax free income from his
agricultural land; out of this income he had undertaken this construction
at Lajpat Nagar. The entire redevelopment cost was borne by their
father; Ex.DW-1/6 and Ex.DW-1/7 evidenced the rental and agricultural
income of their father; reflecting an income of about Rs.4 lacs per year.
The father of the parties (deceased) was also a post graduate and an
editor of the Science Journal of the "Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research" of the Government of India and was also giving tuitions in
science and maths; he had income from this source as well.
15 DW-2 is the paternal aunt of the parties and her testimony has
been heavily relied upon by defendant to substantiate his stand that it
was in her presence and under her guidance that their father had orally
partitioned his properties. Her testimony is relevant. She is
Smt.Chhaya Sharma. In her examination-in-chief she stated that her
brother (father of the parties) and his wife used to discuss all small and
big internal matters with her which included family rituals, such as
namkaran, mundun, engagement, marriage, education and career of the
children; she was a part of the decision making process during the
growing up phase of the children and thereafter. The Lajpat Nagar
property was in the name of her brother. Oral family settlement had
been entered into between the family wherein the defendant was to have
exclusive right over the Lajpat Nagar property and half the share in the
Bulandshahar property. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she
does not remember as to when she visited the Lajpat Nagar after it was
reconstructed in the year 2004. Admittedly, after the year 2004 she had
not visited her brother except on the occasion of the death of her sister-
in-law. She admitted that her brother had told her about the partition
between himself and his children. This statement made by DW-2 in
fact destroys the version set up by the defendant that the oral partition
had been effected interse the family members in the presence of
DW-2. DW-2 has made a categorical admission that her brother had
told her about the partition between himself and the children meaning
thereby that she was not witness to the oral settlement. That apart even
as per her examination in chief she had been consulted by her brother in
the decision making process of the growing up children i.e. matters of
namkaran, mundane, engagement, marriage and education and the
further admission made by DW-2 that her brother had told her about the
partition substantiates the submission of the plaintiffs that in fact an oral
family settlement was not arrived at in the presence of DW-2.
16 DW-2 also admitted that the marriage of her niece Jyotsna who
had been studying in the Jesus and Marry College was performed
simply. She admitted that the Mukherjee Nagar property (where
plaintiff no.2 is residing) is in the name of the father of Ajesh (husband
of plaintiff no.2) since before the marriage of the parties. This property
at Mukherjee Nagar being in the name of father of Ajesh destroys the
second submission of the learned counsel for the defendant that the
father of the parties had given a fortune to his daughter at the time of her
marriage and the purchase of Mukherjee Nagar property was made out
of that fortune. This property is neither in the name of Jyotsna nor in
the name of her husband Ajesh but is in the name of father of Ajesh.
Thus this submission of plaintiff no.1 on this score being that this
property is the property of the in-laws of the plaintiff no.2 and family of
the parties had nothing to do with the funds generated for the purchase
of this property is correct submission i.e. why obviously this property
was in the name of the father of Ajesh (father-in-law of plaintiff no.2).
17 DW-7 Shiv Kumar Pathak was a family friend of the parties. He
admitted that he is living in Faridabad since 2007. He used to meet the
father of the parties (Hem Chandra Kaushik) once or twice in a year.
Before 2007 he had met Hem Chandra Kaushik in the year 2004 and
lastly met him in 2007. He had admitted that a criminal case was
pending against him in Delhi and defendant Vivek had come to court to
appear as a surety. He admitted that he only knew the broad facts of the
family affairs of Hem Chandra Kaushik. He denied the suggestion that
Vivek had stood surety for him that is why he has come to court to
depose in his favour.
18 DW-3 Ashok Kaushik was a cousin of the parties. In his cross-
examination, he admitted that he does not know if Hem Chandra
Kaushik had divided his properties amongst his children in the year
2004; he was only aware about the status of the agricultural land.
Testimony of this witness also does not help the stand of the defendant.
19 DW-4 Deepak Chopra was a neighbor of the parties. He
reiterated the stand of the defendant but in his cross-examination he
stated that he cannot say as to whether Hem Chandra Kaushik had got
the property constructed himself or whether it was the defendant who
had reconstructed it. He admitted that in the summer of 2004 he had
gone to the house of Hem Chandra Kaushik where he found that Hem
Chandra Kaushik was sorting out his books. On inquiry he was told that
the Lajpat Nagar property L-19, had fallen to the share of Vivek who
wanted to reconstruct it. He admitted that he had not asked Hem
Chandra Kaushik as to what had fallen to the share of the other
plaintiffs. He did not try to find out details of the family agreement.
He admitted that he has come to depose in court at the request of
defendant.
20 Plaintiff no.1 being the younger son of Hem Chandra Kaushik had
got married in the year 1997, plaintiff no.2 being the daughter was
married in the year 1996; her marriage was performed simply. This was
admitted by both DW-1 and DW-2. The submission of the defendant
that a huge fortune was given to her at the time of her marriage which
had led to purchase of house of Mukherjee Nagar has been demolished
by the testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 themselves. It is an admitted fact
that this house at Mukherjee Nagar was in the name of the father-in-law
of plaintiff no.2. Had the money for the purchase of house of
Mukherjee Nagar being given them by Hem Chandra Kaushik, the
obvious corollary would have been that the house would have been
purchased in the name of either plaintiff no.2 or her husband but
definitely not in the name of her father-in-law. The stand of the stand of
the plaintiffs on this score being that this property at Mukherjee Nagar
has no connection with the family funds of Hem Chandra Kaushik. This
is a correct submission.
21 Admittedly, redevelopment of the Lajpat Nagar property had
taken place but the question which has to be answered is as to who had
spent this money. The bank account and income tax returns of Hem
Chandra Kaushik reflect that he had a steady source of income i.e. not
only his agricultural land which was tax free but also his rental income
which he was getting from the first and second floor and was also
earning from tuitions; it is also admitted that at the time when the
reconstruction of the property at Lajpat Nagar property was done
(2004-2005) Hem Chandra Kasuhik was very much alive. It was he
who had used his funds in the redevelopment of this property. The
supervisory capacity of the defendant in this redevelopment project did
not entitle himself to claim ownership over this property and set up a
stand that he had spent the money on this redevelopment. Testimony of
DW-1 has been demolished in his cross-examination. He is not entitled
to the benefit of the ratio of the judgment reported as 2010 (174) DLT
665 Suresh Chand Mathur v.Harish Chand Mathur to support an
argument that where a statement has been made by a witness and he has
not been cross-examined on that point is deemed to be accepted. The
stand of DW-6 also does not support the case of the defendant on this
count.
22 The most vehement argument of the learned counsel for the
defendant that the oral partition had taken placed in the family of Hem
Chandra Kaushik in consultation with DW-2 and her husband was also
negatived by DW-2 in her candid admission when she admitted that her
brother had told her about this partition; this is contrary to the stand of
DW-1 whose categorical version was that this oral family settlement had
taken placed in her presence. That apart DW-2 has deposed that her
brother used to consult her on various issues of the family which
included marriage ceremonies, mundun, engagement ceremonies and the
education of the children; in this detail there was a conspicuous absence
of any family arrangement being made in consultation with DW-2.
23 DW-3 and DW-4 have also made a frank admissions. DW-3
knew only about the status of the agricultural land at Bulandshahar.
DW-4 was aware only of Lajpat Nagar property but was unaware what
has fallen to the share of plaintiffs. He also admitted that he could not
say whether the redevelopment of the Lajpat Nagar property which was
admittedly carried out during the life time of Hem Chandra Kaushik was
done by Hem Chandra Kaushik himself or otherwise. DW-1 had also
admitted that the water meters which were installed after the
redevelopment in the property continued to be in the name of their father
Hem Chandra. It is rightly pointed out learned counsel for the plaintiff
that if this property was reconstructed and redeveloped and the charges
had been borne by defendant noting prevented him from getting these
water meters installed in his name. Thus obviously for the reason that
no oral partition as has been alleged by the defendant had taken place.
The sum total of the aforenoted evidence both oral and documentary
thus nowhere establishes the stand of the defendant that an oral partition
had taken place between the parties between the Deewali in the year
2003 and Holi in the year 2004. There being no oral partition of the
aforenoted properties during the life time of Hem Chandra Kaushik, the
plaintiffs are entitled to the partition of the suit properties.
24 Issue nos. 1 and 2 are decided accordingly.
Issue No.3
25 Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the CPC provides that where relief is
undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct
the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court in case fails to do so,
the plaint is liable to be rejected. The judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the defendant reported as 2008 (149) DLT 746
Meenakshi Gupta Vs. Naveen Mahajan has no application to the factual
matrix of this case. This was a case where the court had held that even
as per the case of the plaintiff there was no joint position.
26 The present suit is a suit for partition. This Court has already
answered issue no.1 in favour of the plaintiffs. There having been no
oral partition of the suit property, all the properties of Hem Chandra
Kaushik were in possession of his Class-I legal heirs i.e. the plaintiffs
and the defendants either constructively or physically. Ad valorem
court fee did not have to be affixed as is the arguments raised by the
learned counsel for the defendant. Plaint is not liable to be rejected.
This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant.
Issue No.4
27 In view of the aforenoted discussion, the plaintiffs are entitled to
the rendition of accounts of from the defendant. DW-1 has admitted
that he has been receiving the rent of the first floor and the second floor
of the property till the time that they were on rent; in one part of his
testimony he had admitted that even during the life time of his father he
was taking rent from the first floor. After the death of their father i.e.
on 10.8.2008 all rentals of the first floor and the second floor have been
enjoyed by the defendant alone. Defendant is liable to render accounts
on this score. He will submit statement of account on affidavit of the
rentals collected by him w.e.f. 2006 onwards within a period of eight
weeks from today. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the defendant.
RELIEF :
28 This Court hereby passes a preliminary decree of partition under
Order 20 Rule 18 of the CPC declaring that each of the parties i.e. the
two plaintiffs and the defendant are entitled to 1/3rd share in all the suit
properties i.e. (i) L-19, Lajpat Nagar-III,Delhi-110024; (ii) Flat
No.1402, Marathon Galaxy-I, L.B.S. Marg, Mulund, Mumbai and (iii)
Agricultural land in two pieces comprising of about 10 acres each in
village and post office Shedawan, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh.
29 Mr.S.S.Chadha, Advocate (Cell No.9810340129) is appointed to
conduct an inquiry into the suit property and to submit a report as to
whether it is possible to physically divide the suit properties by metes
and bounds, if so, to suggest mode of partition. The fee of the local
commissioner is fixed at Rs.1.00 lac to be borne equally by all the
parties. The local commissioner shall submit his report in eight weeks.
30 List for directions on 27.04.2015.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
FEBRUARY10, 2015
ndn
