Page No.# 1/2 vs On The Death Of Bhupesh Prodhani
2025 Latest Caselaw 3988 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/2 vs On The Death Of Bhupesh Prodhani on 11 March, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                 Page No.# 1/20

GAHC010161742011




                                                            2025:GAU-AS:2799

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : Test.App./12/2011

         BIKASH CHANDRA PRODHANI
         S/O BHUBAN CH. PRODHANI, R/O SOUTH TOKRERCHORA PT. IV, P.O. and
         P.S. GOLAKGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN. NO. 783334



         VERSUS

         ON THE DEATH OF BHUPESH PRODHANI
         HIS LEGAL HEIRS SWAPNA PRODHANI AND ORS

         1.1:SWAPNA PRODHANI
         W/O LATE BHUPESH PRODHANI
          R/O GOLAKGANJ
          DHUBRI
         WARD NO. 6
          P.O. GOLAKGANJ
          DISTRICT DHUBRI
         ASSAM
          PIN 783334.

         1.2:PRITAM PRODHANI
          S/O LATE BHUPESH PRODHANI
          R/O GOLAKGANJ
          DHUBRI
         WARD NO. 6
          P.O. GOLAKGANJ
          DISTRICT DHUBRI
         ASSAM
          PIN 783334.

         2:SMTI SNIGDHA KALITA

          D/O LT. BHUBAN CH. PRODHANI
                                    Page No.# 2/20

CHIRMOYEE GIRL'S SCHOOL
P.O. and .S. GOLAKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783334

3:SMTI ABHARANI SARKAR

D/O LATE BHUBAN CH. PRODHANI
C/O SRI RATHNDRA MOHAN SARKAR
VILL. SOUTH RAIPUR
P.O. and P.S. GOLAKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783334

4:DR. N.K. DAS ROY

KRISNA MOHAN PATH
NEAR CHILARAI L.P. SCHOOL
R.K. MISSION ROAD P.O. BIDYAPARA
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783334

5:SMTI. HIMANI DEB ROY

D.B.T.R.P. GOVT.M.E. SCHOOL
PARK ROAD
P.O.SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788001

6:SMTI. SUSHOBHITA DEB ROY



7:SMTI.JOYTIRMOYEE DEV ROY


8:SMTI SAKUNTALA DEV ROY


9:SMTI NIBEDITA DEV ROY

 NO.6
7
                                                          Page No.# 3/20

8
9 ALL UNDER C/O DR. N.K.DEBROY
KRISNA MOHAN PATH NEAR CHILARAI L.P.SCHOOL0
R.K. MISSION ROAD
P.O. BIDYAPARA
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783334

10:BIRENDRA NATH RAY PRODHANI

R/O NALIA PART-II
P.O. DIMAKURI
P.S. GOLAKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN 783334

11:DR.BIPUL CH. RAY PRODHANI

BONGAIGAON COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER
P.O.
P.S. and DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783380

12:BIBEKANANDA RAY PRODHANI



13:SMT SAPTARSHIKA RAY PRODHANI



14:LAKHI NATH RAY PRODHANI


15:SMT. JYOTISTIKHA RAY PRODHANI


16:BIKRAMJIT RAY PRODHANI

NO. 12
13
14
15 and 16 ALL UNDER C/O SRI BIRENDRA NATH RAY PRODHANI
P.O. DIMAKURI
P.S. GOLAKGANJ
                                                                Page No.# 4/20

          DIST.DHUBRI
          ASSAM.

         17:SMTI DIPSHIKHA RAY PRODHANI

         C/O SRI JIBESHCH. RAY PRODHANI
         BISANDOI
         MANDOLI PART-II
         P.O. BISANDOI
         DIST. DHUBRI
         ASSAM
         PIN-783334 NO. 4 TO 9 LEGAL HEIRS OF LATENIVARANI DEV RAY
         DAUGHTER OF LATE BHUBAN CH. PRODHANI AND NO.10 TO 17 ARE
         LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE IVA RANI PRODHANI DAUGHTER LATE BHUBAN
         CH.PRODHAN




    Advocate for the appellant(s)    : Mr. D Kalita


    Advocate for the respondent(s) :    Mr. AK Purkayastha


    Date of hearing                    : 11.03.2025
    & Judgment


                                    BEFORE
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH


                        JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. D Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. AK Purkayastha, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Page No.# 5/20

legal heirs of Late Bhupesh Prodhani, who was the original respondent No.1.

2. This is an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 'the Act of 1925') challenging the judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 passed in Misc. Probate Case No.07/2006.

3. This Court before taking up the grounds of objections raised in the instant memo of appeal would like to first deal with the facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the Court of the learned District Judge, Dhubri.

5. A Will purportedly executed by one Late Hiron Prova Prodhani (since deceased) dated 11.05.1987 is the subject matter of the instant proceedings. Her son Bhupesh Prodhani (since deceased) as Applicant, during his lifetime filed an application seeking probate of the Will dated 11.05.1987 which was registered and numbered as Misc.(P) No.07/2006.

6. Pursuant to the filing of the said application, the Appellant herein who was the opposite party No.1 in the said proceedings filed a written statement contesting the said Will. It was the case of the opposite party No.1 in the said written statement that after the death of his father, his mother Late Hiron Prova Prodhani was living with him in his house and since the first part of 1985, she Page No.# 6/20

was ill and was suffering from breast cancer, for which, she was treated with cobalt therapy from 19.06.1985 at Dr. Bhubaneswar Baruah Cancer Institute at Guwahati. During her stay with the opposite party No.1, she never expressed anything about her intention of making any Will in respect to the property mentioned in the Will in favour of the son of Applicant or to anybody else. It was stated that 2(two) months prior to her death, she shifted to the house of Applicant. The opposite party No.1 further stated that Late Hiron Prova Prodhani was bedridden on account of treatment of radiotherapy from June 1985 till her last breathe i.e. 11.07.1987 and she was mentally incapable of giving any sound, valid and proper consent and opinion during the said period. It was further mentioned that Late Hiron Prova Prodhani was a literate lady, having knowledge both in English and Assamese and she was a permanent member of the Governing Body of Chilarai College, Golakganj, where she used to sign both in English and Assamese in the meetings she attended. It was denied that Late Hiron Prova Prodhani had put her thumb impression in the Will dated 11.05.1987 and it was alleged that the said document is a fabricated and manufactured document by the Applicant and got the same registered secretly through unfair means without the valid consent and opinion of the Testatrix i.e. Late Hiron Prova Prodhani and without giving any sense to other opposite parties.

7. It was also mentioned that the alleged Will was manufactured by practicing fraud to deprive the other legal heirs and successors of the deceased and the filing of the application for probate of the purported Will, after the lapse of about 18 years is an act of conspiracy of the applicant for unlawful gain and benefit through foul play.

Page No.# 7/20

8. It is pertinent to mention herein that Late Hiron Prova Prodhani expired leaving behind various legal representatives which included two sons, four daughters and granddaughters and grandsons. Notices were also issued upon the other legal representatives. None of the legal representatives except the Appellant herein contested the Will.

9. The probate proceedings being opposed, the said probate proceedings took the form of a regular suit in terms with Section 295 of the Act of 1925. Accordingly, the applicant of the probate application i.e. Late Bhupesh Prodhani became the plaintiff and the Opposite party No.1 became the defendant. The learned District Judge, Dhubri framed as many as three issues for decision. The three issues were:

(i). Whether the Probate Petition is maintainable, barred by limitation?

(ii). Whether the alleged Will was prepared fraudulently?

(iii). Whether the petitioner would be entitled to any relief as prayed for?

10. The record reveals that on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff i.e. Late Bhupesh Prodhani, the following witnesses adduced evidence:

1. Sri Bhupesh Prodhani - PW-1

2. Sri Ranjit Kumar Ray - PW-2

3. Sri Rabindra Narayan Mandal - PW-3

3. Sri Nagendra Chandra Dutta - PW-4

On behalf of the defendant, he only adduced himself as a witness, i.e. OPW-

1.

Page No.# 8/20

11. On behalf of the plaintiff, 2(two) documents were exhibited i.e. the Will as Exhibit-1 and the Death Certificate of Late Hiron Prova Prodhani as Exhibit-2. On behalf of the Defendant, 3(three) documents were exhibited. Exhibit-A is an advise slip of Dr. Bhubaneswar Baruah Cancer Institute which shows that the Testatrix Late Hiron Prova Prodhani was under cobalt treatment from 19.06.1985. Exhibit-B is the certificate given by one RT Bora, Assistant Professor of Surgery, Guwahati Medical College and Hospital. Exhibit-C is an undated statement of Late Hiron Prova Prodhani.

12. The learned District Judge vide the judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 allowed the application filed by the applicant i.e. Late Bhupesh Prodhani and thereby issued probate of the annexed Will in favour of the applicant. In doing so, the learned District Judge held that the probate application was maintainable and as there was no period of limitation prescribed for seeking probate, the said application seeking probate was maintainable. On the issue as regards as to whether the alleged Will was prepared fraudulently, the learned District Judge after taking into account the evidence came to a categorical opinion that the Will i.e. Exhibit-1 was executed by the Testatrix, Late Hiron Prova Prodhani during her lifetime in respect to the Schedule land. It was further held that the evidence of the applicant's side was quite believable as because the applicant by adducing sufficient evidence removed all doubts including the circumstances under which the Testatrix executed the Will by putting her thumb impression. It was further held that the Will in question was genuine and was not prepared by playing fraud and, accordingly, the Issue No.3 was decided, thereby holding that the applicant would be entitled to the relief as prayed for.

Page No.# 9/20

13. Being aggrieved, the opposite party No.1 has preferred the instant appeal. This Court by the order dated 25.11.2011 admitted the appeal and records were called for.

14. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the grounds of objections which were taken in the instant memo of appeal which were exemplified by the submission(s) so made by Mr. D Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is no explanation in the application seeking probate as to why there was a delay of 18 years in filing the probate application. He submitted that though the settled law stipulates that Section 137 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963 applies, which means that the application has to be filed within 3(three) years from the date when the right to apply accrues, there is a requirement that this aspect of the matter should have been stated in the pleadings. He submitted that the learned District Judge decided the Issue No.1 firstly without coming to a proper finding as regards as to whether the filing of the Application seeking probate was barred by limitation.

15. He submitted that the impugned judgment and order is required to be interfered with for the following reasons:

(a). The Testatrix was a literate person and she knew how to write in English as well as in Assamese. However, in the Exhibit-1 her thumb impression had been put, which raises great suspicion about the genuineness of the Will.

(b). The Testatrix was suffering from breast cancer and she was not in a proper state of mind to execute the said Will. These aspects of the matter were Page No.# 10/20

not taken into consideration by the learned District Judge in passing the impugned judgment.

(c). A reading of the Will would show that Late Bhupesh Prodhani did not have the right to apply after the beneficiary had become a major. He submitted that as on the date, on which, the purported Will was prepared i.e. on 11.05.1987, the beneficiary was 9(nine) years. At the time, when the application seeking probate was filed, i.e. after 18 years from the date of purported execution of the Will, the beneficiary had already become a major and as such, Late Bhupesh Prodhani did not have a right to apply for probate.

(d). When an application is being filed seeking probate of the Will, the said Application has to be verified by at least one of the witnesses to the Will. In the instant case, it would be seen that the Application seeking probate did not include any verification by one of the attesting witnesses.

16. Per contra, Mr. AK Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the Respondent No.1 submitted that seeking probate is a solemn duty of the propounder of the Will. Under such circumstances, the right to apply shall only accrue when necessity arises. He, therefore, submitted that though the Application was filed after 18 years from the date of execution of the Will, the same has to be taken into account on the basis of when the right to apply had accrued. He submitted that from the evidence on record, it would be seen that the Applicant's son was a student and the Applicant was having financial difficulty and as such, the said aspect was duly placed before the learned Court below.

Page No.# 11/20

17. Mr. AK Purkayastha, the learned counsel further submitted that the evidence on record would clearly show that the Will was validly executed and the Will was also a genuine Will. He submitted that when an Application seeking probate of a Will is contested, the propounder of the Will has to prove that there was no suspicious circumstances under which the Will was prepared. Referring to the evidence, more particularly of the PW-1 and the PW-2, who was the doctor, he submitted that the suspicions so sought to be raised by the Opposite Party i.e. the appellant herein, was duly addressed. He stated that the evidence of the PW-2 clearly stated that the Testatrix was in sound state of mind at the time of execution of the Will and this evidence of the PW-2, who was the doctor could not be dislodged during cross examination. Further referring to the cross examination of the PW-2, the learned counsel submitted that the doctor had categorically stated that the Testatrix at that relevant point of time, her hands were trembling and, as such, she had to put her thumb impression. Further referring to the evidence of the PW-3, the learned counsel submitted that the said witness not only stated that the Testatrix informed him as to how the Will is to be prepared, but during his cross examination, he further stated that the Testatrix though wanted to sign, but could not sign, for which, the Testatrix had put her thumb impression. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the question of the Testatrix being a literate and as such, she could sign the Will had been duly explained in the evidences of the PW-1, 2 and 3.

18. Further referring to Section 63(a) of the Act of 1925, the learned counsel submitted that the Testatrix could sign or could affix her mark in the Will and in the instant case she had affixed her mark by putting her thumb impression. He, Page No.# 12/20

therefore, submitted that the learned District Judge after taking into account the evidence on record had come to a finding that the Will was validly executed and as well as the Will was genuine.

19. On the question of infraction to Section 281 of the Act of 1925, the learned counsel submitted that there are no pleadings in the objection that the application suffers from the defect that there is no verification of one of the attesting witnesses. Be that as it may, the learned counsel submitted that a perusal of Section 281 of the Act of 1925 further shows that it is not mandatory that it is to be verified by a witness as it very much appears from the language of Section 281 itself, which stipulates the words "(when procurable)". He, therefore, submitted that the submission as regards the infraction to Section 281 of the Act of 1925 does not hold good.

20. On the basis of the above, this Court frames the following points for determination:

(i). Whether the application filed seeking probate was barred by limitation?

(ii). Whether the Will i.e. the Exhibit-1 was validly executed and whether the Will is a genuine Will of the Testatrix?

(iii). Whether the petition filed seeking probate of the Will dated 11.05.1987 was maintainable on the ground that no attesting witness had verified the said petition?

(iv). Whether in any view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order requires interference?

Page No.# 13/20

First point for determination:

21. The first point for determination pertains to as to whether the application seeking probate of the Will dated 11.05.1987 was barred by limitation?

22. From the materials on record, it would be seen that a Will was executed on 11.05.1987 and the application praying for probate of the said Will was filed on 09.01.2006. In the case of the Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, reported in (1976) 4 SSC 634, the Supreme Court, while distinguishing Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act of 1963) observed that the limitation prescribed in Article 137 of the Act of 1963 shall be applicable in respect to an application for grant of letter of administration or for grant of letter of probate. Further to that, the Supreme Court in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur Vs. Kirandeep Kaur and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 463, observed that the crucial expression in Article 137 of the Act of 1963 is " right to apply". It was observed that an application for grant of a letter of administration merely seeks recognition from the Court to perform a duty and because of the nature of the proceedings it is a continuing right. It is further observed by the Supreme Court in the said judgment that an application filed for grant of a probate or letter of administration, no right is asserted or claimed by the applicant. The applicant only seeks recognition of the Court to perform a duty. In addition to that, it was also observed that a proceedings filed for grant of probate or letter of administration is not an action of law, but it is an action in rem.

Page No.# 14/20

23. In another recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sameer Kapoor and Another Vs. State through Subdivision Magistrate, South, New Delhi and Others, reported in (2020) 12 SCC 480, the Supreme Court categorically observed that right to get the letter of administration is a continuous right which can be exercised at any time as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed. Taking into account the law so settled, let this Court now take the submission of Mr. D Kalita, the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that Exhibit-1 which is the Will only granted the applicant i.e. Late Bhupesh Prodhani the right to apply till the grandson of the Testatrix did not attain the age of majority.

24. This Court had duly taken note of the contents of the Will i.e. Exhibit-1. From the contents of the Will, it is very clear that at the time when the Will was prepared the beneficiary was a minor and as such, Late Bhupesh Prodhani was entrusted with the duty to file an application seeking probate of the Will. It is, however, relevant to mention that there is no mention in the Will that after the beneficiary attains majority, the beneficiary would have a right to apply. Rather a further perusal of Exhibit-1 would show that Late Bhupesh Prodhani was appointed as the executor to file appropriate application seeking probate of the Will. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court duly takes note of the evidence, it would be seen that during cross examination Late Bhupesh Prodhani further explained that at that relevant point of time, the beneficiary was a student and on account of financial difficulties, he could not file the application seeking probate of the Will. Considering the above, and as per the settled principle of law that the right to get a probate is a continuous right which can be exercised Page No.# 15/20

at any time as long as the right to do so survives and in the instant case it survived and as such, it is the opinion of the Court that the filing of the application by the Applicant Late Bhupesh Prodhani during his lifetime seeking probate of the Will dated 11.05.1987 was not barred by limitation.

Second point for determination:

25. The second point for determination is as to whether the Will was validly executed and as to whether the Will was a genuine Will?

26. This Court finds it relevant at this stage to take note of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lilian Coelho & Ors. Vs. Myra Philomena Coalho reported in (2025) 2 SCC 633 wherein the Supreme Court distinguished the expression "Will is validly executed" with the expression "Will is genuine". The Supreme Court observed in the said judgment that a Will is validly executed when the propounder establishes that the Will was executed in accordance with law. On the other hand, for a Will to be genuine, the propounder has to remove such suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court.

27. In view of the proposition of law as held in the case of Lilian Coelho (supra), let this Court now take up as to whether the propounder of the Will i.e., the applicant had proved that the Will was validly executed and further had been able to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that there was no suspicious circumstances.

Page No.# 16/20

28. From the evidence on record, i.e. the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as well as the PW-4, it would be seen that not only the propounder of the Will i.e. PW-1, but also the attesting witnesses as well as the Registering Authority had proved on the basis of the evidence that the Will in question, was executed by the Testatrix by putting her thumb impression in their presence. The evidence of the PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 in respect to the valid execution of the Will could not be dislodged during the cross examination by the appellant herein.

29. It is further relevant to mention that there were allegations being made in the written objection so filed by the appellant herein that the Will in question, was a fraudulent document. However, the appellant could not prove on the basis of any evidence that a Will, in question, was a fraudulent document. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Will, in question, was validly executed.

30. Now the next question arises as to whether the propounder of the Will i.e. the applicant, could establish that the Will was not executed under suspicious circumstances. In this regard, it is relevant to take note of the stand taken by the appellant to create the suspicion. First, it is the case of the appellant that the Testatrix was suffering from breast cancer and at that relevant point of time, as she was under the cobalt therapy, for which, she was not in a position to have a sound state of mind to execute the Will. Secondly, the Testatrix was a literate person and she knew how to read as well as to write in Assamese and in English. However, the Will in question contains the thumb impression of the Testatrix which creates reasonable suspicion and thirdly, as the Testatrix was Page No.# 17/20

under the care of the applicant i.e. Late Bhupesh Prodhani, she was influenced by Late Bhupesh Prodhani to execute the Will.

31. This Court, for the purpose of taking up the grounds assigned to create a suspicion on the genuineness of the Will finds it relevant to take note of the evidence of PW-2, who was an Oncologist and was treating the Testatrix. In his examination-in-chief, he had categorically stated that he used to attend the Testatrix on call and that she was a breast cancer patient. In his evidence, he further stated that at a time when the Will was executed by the Testatrix in his presence, she was suffering from neurological problem causing general weakness to her health. He further stated that due to the said physical weakness, she could not put her signature in the said Will, but she put her thumb impression. He further stated in his examination-in-chief that he found the Testatix to be mentally fit at the time of execution of the Will.

32. This Court duly takes note of the cross examination of PW-2, wherein he confirmed to what statements he made in his examination-in-chief. He further stated on cross examination that the Testratix used to take meal herself. He further stated in his cross examination that he saw her trembling at that time. He further stated that Testatrix was an educated woman and used to put her signature. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the evidence of PW-3, who not only stated that the Testatrix had put her thumb impression in his presence, but also stated that he took the thumb impression of the Testratrix. He further stated that the Testatrix initially tried to sign her name in writing, but could not, for which, she used to put her thumb impression in the Will.

Page No.# 18/20

33. The above evidences of PW-2 and PW-3, therefore, make it clear that although the Testatrix was suffering from cancer, but she was in sound disposition to execute the Will. There is no evidence produced, on the other hand, by the appellant herein to the effect that at that relevant point of time when the Will was executed, the Testatrix could not have been in a sound state of mind. The ground of suspicion created on the basis that the Testatrix was under the care of the applicant at that relevant point of time, in the opinion of this Court is not sufficient to dislodge a validly executed Will. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, is of opinion that the Will in question, i.e. Exhibit-1 was a validly executed Will and the Will was genuine.

Third point for determination:

34. The third point of determination pertains to as to whether on account of there being no witness, who verified the application filed by the applicant, the entire proceedings should be rendered non est.?

35. This Court duly takes note of that such a plea was never raised by the appellant in his written objection. This Court further takes note of the provisions of Section 281 of the Act of 1925, which further stipulates that the verification of the witness has to be done on the basis if the witness is procurable. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the provision to Section 281 of the Act of 1925 is directory and it would only depend when such a witness can be procured.

Page No.# 19/20

36. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that merely on the ground that the application so submitted seeking probate did not have the verification of the attesting witness, the entire proceedings cannot be said to be non est. Additionally, this Court further takes note of that the PW-2 and PW-3 were the attesting witnesses and they had duly given evidence to that effect that in their presence, the Testatrix had put her thumb impression and this evidence could not be dislodged. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the application filed by Late Bhupesh Prodhani seeking probate of the Will cannot be said to be bad on account of there being no witness, who had signed the verification in the said application.

Fourth point for determination:

37. Whether in any view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order requires interference?

38. In view of the above analysis, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned District Judge had duly addressed the issues as per the settled principles of law and had also duly taken note of the evidence on record. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhubri in Misc.(Probate) Case No.7/2006 does not call for interference.

39. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, this Court affirms the judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhubri in Misc.(Probate) Case No.7/2006.

Page No.# 20/20

40. This Court further imposes a cost of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) upon the appellant. In addition to that, the Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to costs throughout the proceedings.

41. Registry to send back the records.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant