Seema Suri vs Surinder Dewan (Deceased) ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 224 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CS(OS) No. 2944/1996

%                                                    10th January, 2018

SEEMA SURI                                                    ..... Plaintiff
                          Through:       Mr. Neeraj Pandey, Advocate
                                         with plaintiff in person.

                          versus

SURINDER DEWAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LR's & ORS.
                                           ..... Defendants
                 Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Chandrika
                          Gupta and Ms. Nisha Sharma,
                          Advocates for D-3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This is a suit filed seeking reliefs of partition, possession,

rendition of accounts and injunction. The suit property with respect to

which partition is claimed is 12/2 Mile Stone, Main Najafgarh Road,

Delhi. The suit property was belonging to the father of the plaintiff

late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. The total area of the suit land is 15

bhigas and 4 biswas i.e approximately 15200 sq. yards. Plaintiff is the

daughter of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan and the sister of defendant



CS(OS) No. 2944/1996                                          Page 1 of 21
 nos. 1 to 4 in the suit. Defendant nos. 1 to 4 are the sons of late Sh.

Nand Kumar Dewan and defendant nos. 5 to 10 are the daughters of

late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. Defendant no. 11 is the widow of late

Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. I may note that two sons being defendant

nos. 1 and 2 expired during the pendency of the suit and they are now

represented through their legal heirs. Reference to the defendants in

this judgment will be therefore reference to the sons and daughters of

late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan other than the plaintiff who is one of the

daughters of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. Whenever reference will be

required to be made to the defendant no. 11 in the suit being the

mother of the parties and widow of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan this

defendant no. 11 will be referred to as                Smt. Vidyawati

Dewan/defendant no. 11/mother/widow of late Sh. Nand Kumar

Dewan. I may also state that the suit is only pressed with respect to the

relief of this property situated at Najafgarh at Delhi although in the

suit plaint there was a reference to a property owned by late Sh. Nand

Kumar Dewan at Village Tamnoli, District Ambala, but with respect

to which no relief has been claimed in the suit.




CS(OS) No. 2944/1996                                       Page 2 of 21
 2.           Plaintiff's case is simple. Plaintiff/daughter says that her

father late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan, who owned the suit property,

expired intestate on 8.11.1986 at New Delhi. Since the father late Sh.

Nand Kumar Dewan died intestate and leaving behind eleven children,

four sons and seven daughters, as also widow, plaintiff has the 1/12 th

share in the suit property.


3.           This suit is contested by three defendants being defendant

nos. 1, 3 and 11 who have filed their separate written statements i.e by

defendant nos. 1 and 3 being the sons of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan

and the brothers of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 11 being the

mother of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 10.           The other

daughters of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan being the sisters of the

plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 4 have not appeared and not contested

the suit. They have not filed any written statement and nor have

appeared in the suit.


4.           The main contest to the suit is by defendant nos. 3 and 11

who have relied upon a Will dated 22.11.1985 executed by late Sh.

Nand Kumar Dewan. This Will is a registered Will. As per this Will

the seven daughters of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan were disinherited



CS(OS) No. 2944/1996                                       Page 3 of 21
 by him and the suit property was bequeathed by him to his four sons

being the defendant nos. 1 to 4 in the present suit and his widow being

the defendant no. 11 in the suit. Since the suit land comprises of

Khasra nos. 508-511 of Village Najafgrah, in terms of the Will dated

22.11.1985 of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan, land in Khasra Nos. 508

and 509 were given to two sons Sh. Surinder Kumar Dewan and Sh.

Prem Kumar Dewan (being the defendant nos. 1 and 3 in the suit)

along with the defendant no. 11/Smt. Vidyawati Dewan/mother and

the land in the remaining two Khasra Nos. 510 and 511 were

bequeathed to the two sons Sh. Krishan Kumar Dewan and Sh.

Rajinder Kumar Dewan (defendant nos. 2 and 4 in the suit) along with

the mother/Smt. Vidyawati Dewan. It may also be noted that the

movable properties including back accounts and cash were bequeathed

by late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan in favour of his widow Smt.

Vidyawati Dewan, mother of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 10.

Accordingly, defendant nos. 3 and 11 have prayed that the suit be

dismissed because the suit property was bequeathed to defendant nos.

1 to 4 and defendant no. 11 in terms of the Will dated 22.11.1985.




CS(OS) No. 2944/1996                                      Page 4 of 21
 5.           Defendant no. 1 filed his written statement contesting the

suit but defendant no. 1 did not rely upon any Will of the father late

Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan, defendant no. 1 only pleaded for the suit to

be dismissed on the ground that the suit land was an agricultural land

covered under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and to the land

covered under the Delhi Land Reforms Act owned by a male

member/father, female members including daughter, such as the

plaintiff, do not have a right.


6.           After pleadings were complete, the following issues were

framed on 10.10.2006:-

      "1.    Whether the present suit is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi
             Land Reforms Act? OPD
      2.     Whether the plaintiff who is not a bhumidhar has no locus-standi
             to file the present suit? OPP
      3.     Whether the plaintiff has no right of succession under the Delhi
             Land Reforms Act? OPP
      4.     Whether the present suit is barred by Section 10 of the Code of
             Civil Procedure? OPP
      5.     Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any share in the suit property?
             OPP
      6.     Relief."


7.           Since the suit is now contested only by defendant no. 3

by placing reliance upon the Will dated 22.11.1985 of late Sh. Nand

Kumar Dewan, counsel for defendant no. 3 does not press for any

decision on issue nos. 1 to 4. Accordingly, this Court will have to


CS(OS) No. 2944/1996                                              Page 5 of 21
 decide the sole issue being the issue no. 5 framed in the suit and which

will be on the basis as to whether late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan died

intestate or died leaving behind his registered Will dated 22.11.1985.

8.           It is settled law that a Will has to be proved like any other

document. A Will has to be proved by showing that the signatures on

the Will are of the executor and the Will is duly attested by two

attesting witnesses. In addition a person who disputes a Will can also

show that the Will is an unnatural Will and therefore could never have

been executed by the deceased testator.


9.           In order to prove the Will of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan

dated 22.11.1985 defendant no. 3 has led the evidence of the two sons

of the two attesting witnesses of the Will. The two attesting witnesses

of the Will were Sh. Om Prakash Sobti and Sh. Vidya Sagar Vohra

who had expired. The son of Sh. Vidya Sagar Vohra, namely, Sh. Jai

Kishan Vohra has deposed as DW-4 and filed his affidavit by way of

evidence Ex.DW4/1 and son of Sh. Om Prakash Sobti is Sh. Kuldeep

Sobti who has deposed as DW-3 and has tendered his affidavit by way

of evidence as Ex.DW3/A. The affidavit filed by way of evidence as

examination in chief by Sh. Kuldeep Sobti and Sh. Jai Kishan Vohra



CS(OS) No. 2944/1996                                        Page 6 of 21
 are on the same lines of these witnesses deposing that their fathers

have died and death certificate of Sh. Om Prakash Sobti having been

proved as Ex.D3D2/1 and the death certificate of Sh. Vidya Sagar

Vohra proved as Ex.D3W3/1. Both these witnesses Sh. Kuldeep Sobti

and Sh. Jai Kishan Vohra have identified and proved the signatures of

their fathers on the Will dated 22.11.1985 of late Sh. Nand Kumar

Dewan. Sh. Vidya Sagar Vohra had signed as witness no. 1 and his

signatures were identified at portion mark C by his son Sh. Jai Kishan

Vohra and the signature of Sh. Om Prakash Sobti was identified and

marked at portion D during the evidence of Sh. Kuldeep Sobti. In law,

by virtue of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ordinarily a

Will is proved through the deposition of at least one attesting witness.

However, there would be situations where one or both attesting

witnesses may not be available but the same would not mean that the

Will still cannot be proved because how such Will has to be proved

where both the attesting witnesses are not found/dead is found in

Section 69 of the Evidence Act and which Section 69 of the Evidence

Act reads as under:-

      "69. Proof where no attesting witness found.--If no such attesting
      witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in
      the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting



CS(OS) No. 2944/1996                                              Page 7 of 21
       witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person
      executing the document is in the handwriting of that person."



10.          Section 69 of the Evidence Act provides that where there

is no attesting witness who is found so as to prove the Will in view of

Section 68 of the Evidence Act which requires at least one attesting

witness for proving of the Will, the Will should be proved by the Will

shown as bearing the signatures of the attesting witnesses and the

executant of the Will. In the present case the signatures of the two

attesting witnesses Sh. Vidya Sagar Vohra and Sh. Om Prakash Sobti

who have signed as witness nos. 1 and 2 to the Will dated 22.11.1985

of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan have been proved through the sons of

these witnesses Sh. Jai Kishan Vohra and Sh. Kuldeep Sobti.

Therefore in my opinion the defendant no. 3 has succeeded in proving

the Will and which has been exhibited as Ex.DW3/1 so far as the

requirement of proving of the signatures of the attesting witnesses of

the Will is concerned.


11.          I may note that Sh. Kuldeep Sobti who appeared as DW-3

has also deposed that he was personally present when the Will dated

22.11.1985 was executed by late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan.                       This



CS(OS) No. 2944/1996                                               Page 8 of 21
 witness, as also defendant no. 3 who has deposed as DW-1, have

proved and identified the signatures of Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan on the

Will dated 22.11.1985. The Will Ex.DW3/1 in my opinion therefore

has been held to be proved as required by law and subject however to

the further discussion given hereinafter.


12.          On behalf of the plaintiff the Will of the father late Sh.

Nand Kumar Dewan is denied. The Will is alleged to be a forged and

fabricated document. It is also pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff that

the sons namely defendant nos. 1 to 4 did not take any care of the

father late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. It is also argued that the Will is

not a valid document and which becomes clear from two very

important facts. The first important fact is that defendant no. 1 himself

in his written statement filed in this suit in the year 1997 does not

claim inheritance to the property of his father who died on 8.11.1986

on account of the Will dated 22.11.1985. The second ground which is

urged on behalf of the plaintiff for rejecting of the Will Ex.DW3/1 of

late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan is that the defendant no. 3 is said to have

given a statement before the Revenue Authorities for mutation of the

suit land in the name of four brothers being defendant nos. 1 to 4 by



CS(OS) No. 2944/1996                                       Page 9 of 21
 stating that the father had died without leaving a Will for the suit

property to be mutated in the name of the four sons of late Sh. Nand

Kumar Dewan, i.e the four brothers being defendant nos. 1 to 4.

13.          Learned counsel for the defendant no. 3 has in order to

counter the argument urged on behalf of the plaintiff for disbelieving

the Will Ex. DW3/1 has argued that the mother/defendant no. 11/Smt.

Vidyawati Dewan on the basis of the Will Ex. DW3/1 dated

22.11.1985 had filed proceedings for a succession certificate in view

of the fact that under the subject Will all the movable assets of late Sh.

Nand Kumar Dewan, deceased husband of defendant no. 11/ Smt.

Vidyawati Dewan, including bank deposits, were bequeathed              in

favour of defendant no.11/Smt. Vidyawati Dewan. Defendant no. 11/

Smt. Vidyawati Dewan in the succession certificate case claimed

ownership of the movable properties on the basis of the subject Will

dated 22.11.1985 of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. It is argued that in

this succession certificate case citation was issued and all the children

of the deceased Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan were arrayed as respondents

being the four sons and seven daughters, and these four sons and

seven daughters have filed their no objection in the form of written

statement for not opposing the grant of the succession certificate case

filed by the mother/defendant no. 11/Smt. Vidyawati Dewan. This

written statement was sought to be proved in the evidence of

defendant no. 1 but since the written statement/no objection was only

a photocopy the same could not be proved and was marked as A. I

may also note that the record of the succession certificate case has

admittedly been burnt in the fire which took place in the Tis Hazari

Courts and therefore though the defendant no. 3 had made endeavors

to get the original file or certified copy of the file, but since the file

had been burnt in fire the subject file could not be summoned in the

present suit. The judgment of the succession certificate case however

has been proved and exhibited as Ex.DW1/D1. This judgment of the

succession certificate case being judgment dated 8.5.1987 in petition

No. 1126/1986 titled as Smt. Vidyawati Vs. State was put to the

defendant no. 3/DW-1 in the cross-examination of defendant no.

3/DW-1 on 20.4.2010 by the defendant no.4 and LR's of defendant

no.1. Since defendant no. 3/DW-1 admitted this document, hence this

judgment of the succession certificate case was held to be validly

proved and therefore exhibited as Ex.DW1/D1. It is extremely

relevant to note at this stage that plaintiff was given opportunity for

rebuttal evidence after the defendant no. 3/DW-1 led evidence to

prove the subject Will, however, in the affidavit by way of evidence

filed by the plaintiff dated 20.4.2011/12.4.2011 plaintiff has no where

deposed that the judgment dated 8.5.1987 proved as Ex.DW1/D1 is a

forged and fabricated document. Therefore, the succession certificate

case judgment dated 8.5.1987 has to be taken as proved and this

judgment shows that the defendant no. 11/Smt. Vidyawati Dewan

herein had filed succession certificate case pleading the existence of

the Will dated 22.11.1985 of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. This Will

of Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan was proved as Ex.PW2/1 in the succession

certificate case. Accordingly, on account of the written statement filed

by defendant no. 11/mother Smt. Vidyawati affirming the Will of Sh.

Nand Kumar Dewan dated 22.11.1985 as also the judgment of the

succession certificate case dated 8.5.1987 Ex.DW1/D1, it has to be

held that the plaintiff had in fact given her no objection to the

succession certificate case for the succession certificate to be granted

to her mother/defendant no. 11/Smt. Vidyawati on the basis of the

Will dated 22.11.1985 of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. In fact though

the case of the plaintiff is that she had never given no objection by

filing the written statement in the succession certificate case, but if

that is so then there was no reason why the plaintiff has from 1987, till

date in 2018 and especially after when the written statement was filed

by defendant no. 11 in this suit way back in October, 1997, relying

upon and mentioning the judgment dated 8.5.1987 have not filed any

proceeding for setting aside the judgment in the succession certificate

case dated 8.5.1987. In my opinion, in view of the fact of the finality

of the succession certificate case judgment, this is one reason why this

Court has to uphold the due execution and validity of the Will dated

22.11.1985 of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan.

14. No doubt, plaintiff has sought to place reliance upon the

application filed and statement made by defendant no. 3 before the

Revenue Authorities proved as Ex.PW1/AR-1 and Ex.PW1/AR-2 and

Ex.PW1/BR, showing that defendant no. 3 herein before the Revenue

Authorities took up a case in November, 1986 that there was no Will

of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan, however in my opinion learned

counsel for defendant no. 3 is justified in explaining away this

admission by reference to the fact that in terms of the application

made before the Revenue Authorities as also the supporting statement,

the endeavor was to get mutation of the suit property in the name of

the four brothers being the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and which effectively

was also the position in terms of Will to be taken with the events that

the mother/defendant no.11 had also subsequently acted upon the Will

by transferring to the sons or their family member(s) her rights in the

suit property whereby effectively the four sons/family member(s)

became the owners of the suit property. Essentially, therefore what

was sought to be got done was to get ownership in the name of the

four brothers leaving out the seven sisters including the plaintiff, and

which could be taken as a way not to complicate the matters by filing

the Will before the Revenue Authorities and in which circumstances

Will would have to be proved by leading evidence before the Revenue

Authorities.

15. Therefore though the defendant no.3 has taken up a case

in November, 1986 before the Revenue Authorities of there not being

a Will of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan, however since the Will has

otherwise been proved and established in this suit as also in the

succession certificate case filed by the defendant no.11/Smt.

Vidyawati Dewan/mother, with the further fact that plaintiff would

have given no objection for the succession certificate case filed on the

basis of the Will of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan dated 22.11.1985

inasmuch as no proceedings have been initiated by the plaintiff till

date for recalling or setting aside the judgment in the succession

certificate case dated 8.5.1987, and that a civil case to be decided on

balance of probabilities and evidence of both the parties being taken as

a whole, therefore in my opinion only on the basis of the fact that

defendant no.3 stated before the Revenue Authorities that the father

Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan died not leaving behind a Will it cannot be

held that father Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan did not die in fact after

leaving the Will which has been proved as Ex.DW3/1 in the present

case. The self-same reason would also equally apply to the written

statement filed by the defendant no.1 in the suit inasmuch as defendant

no.1 has once again claimed joint ownership of four brothers of the

suit land on account of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,

and which Delhi Land Reforms Act was in issue when the defendant

no.3 had applied before the Revenue Authorities under the Delhi Land

Reforms Act for mutation of the suit land in the name of the four

brothers being the defendant nos.1 to 4 in the present suit i.e the four

sons of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan.

16. In my opinion there is another very strong reason why

this Court has to accept the Will Ex.DW3/1 as proved to be of late Sh.

Nand Kumar Dewan inasmuch as out of the twelve legal heirs of late

Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan being four sons, seven daughters and widow

only one daughter being the plaintiff is disputing the validity of this

Will of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan dated 22.11.1985. The six other

daughters who have been sued as defendant nos. 5 to 10 in the suit

have not supported the plaintiff as no written statements have been

filed by these five defendants nor these defendant nos. 5 to 10/other

daughters of Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan, sisters of the plaintiff, have

appeared in the suit and given a statement in favour of the plaintiff

that their father died intestate and that the father/Sh. Nand Kumar

Dewan did not leave behind any Will dated 22.11.1985 Ex.DW3/1.

Really therefore the present is a case of one out of the twelve legal

heirs only disputing the validity of the Will dated 22.11.1985 of the

deceased testator Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. This in my opinion is

another reason why this Court is inclined to hold the subject Will of

late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan as validly proved for the defendant nos.1

to 4 and defendant no.11 to become the beneficiaries under the subject

Will.

17.(i) Counsel for the plaintiff argued that even if we look at the

unproved written statement filed by the children of late Sh. Nand

Kumar Dewan in the succession certificate case, it is seen that the

name of the petitioner in the written statement has been written not as

Smt. Seema Suri but as Smt. Veena Suri. It is argued on behalf of the

plaintiff that name of the plaintiff is Seema and not Veena, and

therefore, clearly the written statement of no objection was not signed

by the plaintiff in the succession certificate case.

(ii) To this argument in my opinion counsel for the defendant no.3

has rightly referred to the cross-examination of the plaintiff conducted

on 9.12.2015 that actually the name of the plaintiff before marriage

was Veena but after her marriage she was called as Seema. In support

of his argument, counsel for the defendant no.3 has further placed

reliance upon the cross-examination of the plaintiff as PW-1 on

7.7.2008 and which cross-examination was conducted after a direction

was issued by the Joint Registrar of this Court on 4.1.2008 that

plaintiff will bring the necessary documents being her education

certificate in the original so that the actual name of the plaintiff can be

known. However during the cross-examination of the plaintiff as PW-

1 on 7.7.2008 it is seen that plaintiff admits that she has brought the

documents but in response to the question on behalf of defendant no.3,

it is stated that the documents are not produced as the documents

would be self incriminating i.e against the plaintiff. Clearly therefore

the plaintiff was guilty of concealment of documents which she had

brought to the Court and did not file in spite of directions to file the

same in terms of the order of the Joint Registrar dated 4.1.2008.

(iii) Counsel for the plaintiff in response to this argument of the

counsel for the defendant no.3 has argued that in fact during the

evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff, this educational certificate being

the CBSE certificate of the year 1969 HSC examination has been filed

by the plaintiff and proved as Ex.PW1/AR3, however it is seen that

this certificate is in the name of one Smt. Parveen Kumari, daughter of

Sh. Nand Kumar and this certificate is not in the name of Smt. Veena

Dewan and which would be the name of the plaintiff when she was

unmarried and had appeared for the HSC examination for the year

1969. I therefore would not like to place any reliance upon the school

certificate of CBSE of HSC examination 1969 proved by the plaintiff

as Ex.PW1/AR3.

18.(i) The sequitur of the aforesaid discussion is that the Will

dated 22.11.1985 of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan has been proved

through the depositions of the sons of the attesting witnesses who have

come and deposed as DW-3 and DW-4 and both proved signatures of

their fathers who are the attesting witnesses on the Will dated

22.11.1985 of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. In fact there is no cross-

examination by the plaintiff of DW-3 and DW-4 that the signatures on

the Will Ex.DW3/1 being not of the attesting witnesses or Sh. Nand

Kumar Dewan and consequently the signatures of the attesting

witnesses on the Will Ex.DW3/1 and of Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan are

admitted and not disputed. The aforesaid aspects will have to be taken

with the fact that DW-3 in his cross examination clearly stated that he

was present when the Will Ex.DW3/1 was executed and in this regard

also there is no cross examination of the DW-3 by the plaintiff. Hence

the Will Ex.DW3/1 stands proved as required by law.

(ii) Besides proving the signatures being those of the attesting

witnesses, and in terms of Section 69 of the Evidence Act, the Will has

also to be taken as proved because the Will was relied upon by the

mother in the succession certificate case and which succession certificate

case was allowed in terms of the judgment dated 8.5.1987, Ex.DW3/D1

and plaintiff has till date not questioned the finality of the said judgment

including for the reason that plaintiff allegedly did not give her no

objection by filing her joint written statement with ten other legal heirs of

late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan being the four sons and six other daughters.

(iii) The mother/Smt. Vidyawati Dewan, widow of late Sh. Nand

Kumar Dewan who filed the succession certificate case resulting in the

judgment of the succession certificate case dated 8.5.1987 has filed the

written statement in this Court in support of the Will dated 22.11.1985

and also the judgment obtained in the succession certificate case dated

8.5.1987. This is one more reason why the Will Ex.DW3/1 of late Sh.

Nand Kumar Dewan has to be held to be proved as a valid Will of late

Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan. The statements made by the defendant no.3

before the Revenue Authorities of father late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan

died without leaving a Will as also the written statement filed by the

defendant no.1 is sufficiently explained as required in a civil case to be

decided on balance of probabilities that ultimately the effect of the

statement before the Revenue Authorities or the written statement of the

defendant no.1 is having the effect that the four brothers being the four

sons of late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan became owners of the suit property

and which is also the position in terms of the subject Will of late Sh.

Nand Kumar Dewan whereby four brothers take the suit property along

with the mother being the defendant no.11.

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the Will

dated 22.11.1985 of the late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan has been proved as

Ex.DW3/1 and consequently the suit for partition etc filed by the plaintiff

has to be dismissed inasmuch as late Sh. Nand Kumar Dewan has not

died intestate as is the case which is set up in the plaint for seeking the

relief of partition etc.

20. Suit is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear

their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared.

21. Since the present suit is dismissed, all pending I.As. are

also disposed of accordingly.

JANUARY 10, 2018                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK/Ne/Godara