Kenchappa vs Smt Lakkamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 3083 Kant

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              R.S.A. NO.25/2007 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

KENCHAPPA
DEAD BY LRS

NINGAMMA
W/O LATE THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O. NAKIKERE
MADANAKERE HOBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                            ... APPELLANT

            (BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. LAKKAMMA
       W/O SANNA KENCHAPPA
       @ KENCHAPPA
       DEAD

       (RESPONDENT NO.2 WAS TREATED AS
       RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER COURT ORDER)
                            2



2.   SMT. KENCHAMMA
     DEAD BY LRS

2(a) S.SHIVARUDRAPPA
     S/O SIDDAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

2(b) S.MALLIKARJUNAPPA
     S/O SIDDAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

     BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
     NAKIKERE VILLAGE
     MADADAKERE HOBLI
     HOSADURGA TALUK
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2(a & b)
            VIDE ORDER DATED 14.09.2017,
          R2 TREATED AS LR OF DECEASED R1)


     THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 13.10.2006
PASSED IN R.A.NO.74/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.), HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.11.1995 PASSED IN O.S.NO.560/1989 ON THE FILE OF
THE MUNSIFF, HOSADURGA AND ETC.


    THIS R.S.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 01.06.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 3



                        JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment

and decree dated 13.10.2006 passed in R.A.No.74/2001 by

the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holalkere.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for

the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff

before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property

item Nos.1 to 5 were allotted to the share of the plaintiff's

father in the partition effected between the brothers and

hence, the plaintiff claimed the relief of declaration to

declare that the plaintiff is the owner in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and for

permanent injunction against the defendants. It is

contended that as per the said partition, the mutation was

effected in the revenue records. After the death of the

father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's name has been mutated

in the revenue records. The husband of defendant No.1

died in the year 1940. After the death of the husband of

defendant No.1, defendant No.1 started to live with her

parents along with defendant No.2. Sanna Kenchappa @

Kenchappa died about 25 years back. The said Sanna

Kenchappa had gifted the properties fallen to his share in

favour of the plaintiff under a registered gift deed dated

15.05.1958. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of

the property which was gifted by his senior uncle. The

defendants have no right or interest over the said property

to interfere with the same. The defendants by misusing the

entries in their names in the revenue records, started

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the entries

were made in the revenue records behind the back of the

plaintiff. As such, no value whatsoever attached to the said

entries. Hence, sought for the relief.

4. The defendants after their appearance filed their

written statement admitting the genealogy and the

relationship with the plaintiff. They contends that the

father-in-law of defendant No.1 name is not Sanna

Kenchappa but his name is Kenchappa only. The defendants

have denied the partition alleged by the plaintiff. It is also

denied by the defendants that after the death of the

plaintiff's father, the plaintiff's name has been mutated in

the revenue records and also denied that after the death of

the husband of defendant No.1, both left the house and

started to live with her parents. The defendants have

denied the very execution of the gift deed and the

defendants denied the ownership of the plaintiff's and

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

The other allegations made in the plaint that the revenue

records are got changed beyond the back of the plaintiff

also denied. It is contended that the schedule lands and

another land measuring 1 acre 4 guntas was allotted to the

share of Kenchappa that is father-in-law of defendant No.1.

The lands bearing Sy.No.3/8, 88/4, 88/10 and 108/10 of

Nakikere village were fallen to the share of the plaintiff's

father Shivalingappa @ Chigalingappa. The defendants

further contended that the plaintiff and his father never

resided in Nakikere village as they lived in Lakkihalli,

Kenkere and other village for running hulimatt. It is

contended that the father-in-law of defendant No.1 and her

husband were in possession and enjoyment of the lands

allotted to the share of Shivalingappa and after his death,

the defendants are in possession of the same. The father of

the plaintiff had come to the village in the year 1956 with

serious illness. It is also contended that they look after the

father of the plaintiff. It is further contended that the

plaintiff was unheard for about 15 to 20 years. After the

death of the father of the plaintiff, the entire joint family

properties were in possession and enjoyment of defendant

No.1, her husband and her father-in-law. It is contended

that they have perfected the title by adverse possession in

respect of Sy.No.108/11. Hence, prayed the Court to

dismiss the same.

5. The Trial Court after considering the disputes

involved between the parties framed the issues. In order to

prove the case of the plaintiff, he examined himself as PW1

and also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got

marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P26. The defendants

have examined P.A. holder as DW1 and got marked the

documents at Ex.D1 to D31. The Trial Court after

appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on

record decreed the suit partly in respect of item No.5 and in

respect of item Nos.2 to 4 dismissed the suit. Being

aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial

Court, an appeal was filed. The First Appellate Court also

dismissed I.A.No.2 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and

also having considered the material on record confirmed the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence, the present

second appeal is filed before this Court.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant before this Court that without considering the

revenue documents, both the Courts have committed an

error in dismissing the suit and the said findings are

perverse on account of non-consideration of the

documentary evidence and also on account of failure to

draw necessary presumption and committed an error in not

considering the material on record in a proper perspective.

Hence, the very judgment and decree passed by the Trial

Court as well as the First Appellate Court are against the

material on record. It is contended that Ex.P1 to P5 are

coupled with Ex.D17, 18, 22 and 23 which goes to show

that the properties are the joint and ancestral family

properties were divided and katha has been made in

pursuant to the partition. The documents produced by the

plaintiff as well as defendants evidence the fact that there

was a partition and same is also admitted by DW1 in his

evidence and these are the material has not been

considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate

Court.

7. Having considered the grounds urged in the

second appeal, this Court has framed the following

substantial question of law while admitting the appeal:

1. Whether the judgment of the Courts below

dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is perverse on

account of non-consideration of the documentary

evidence and on account of failure to draw

necessary presumption and interference from

the entries in revenue records in respect of the

suit schedule properties?

2. Whether the findings of the Courts below that

the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove that the

suit schedule property fell to his share under the

admitted oral partition, is contrary to the

evidence on record?

8. The counsel for the appellant during the course

of his arguments vehemently contend that the plaintiff's

claim is based on the share allotted to his father in the oral

partition and the pleadings are very specific to that effect.

The plaintiff also contended that his senior uncle has

executed the gift deed on 15.05.1958. The counsel would

vehemently contend that the defendants got changed the

katha misrepresenting as they are the legal representatives

of Kenchappa and hence, the suit was filed for the relief of

declaration and permanent injunction. The counsel would

vehemently contend that the plaintiff in support of his claim

got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P26 which clearly

disclose that the entries are found in the name of the said

Chigalingappa and DW1 also categorically admitted that

earlier there was a partition. The counsel vehemently

contend that the defendants have examined one witness as

DW1 who is not having acquaintance with the facts of the

case and he is a P.A. holder and P.A. holder should have

the personal knowledge. The counsel would vehemently

contend that the name of Chigalingappa found in all

revenue documents which were produced by the plaintiff

and in 'D' series documents which have been produced by

the defendants also disclose the name of Chigalingappa.

There is no dispute with regard to the partition and both the

parties claim that there was a oral partition. The documents

supports the case of the plaintiff and gift deed is also

evident that there was a partition and entries were also

found to that effect. The counsel also submits that

Shivalingappa is also called as Chigalingappa and no

dispute to that effect. The counsel would vehemently

contend that DW1 who has been examined before the Trial

Court is aged about 37 years and the said partition was

prior to his birth and how he can speak with regard to the

partition and the defendant avoided to appear before the

Court and only examined P.A. holder as DW1 hence, both

the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the

evidence of DW1.

9. The counsel in support of his arguments relied

upon the judgment reported in 2010 AIR SCW 7014 in

the case of RATTAN CHAND & OTHERS vs MORI

(DECEASED BY L.R.) & OTHERS.The counsel referring

this judgment would vehemently contend that when the

finding the fact is erroneous and same is not based on the

material on record, the Court can interfere in the second

appeal and the counsel also brought to notice of this Court

to the observations made in paragraph 6 and 7 to that

effect. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported

in AIR 1997 SC 1906 in the case of MAJOR SINGH vs

RATTAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS wherein

it is held that rejection of evidence by lower Court on flimsy

grounds involves a substantial question of law, the High

Court right in interfering in the matter. The counsel also

relied upon the judgment reported in 2004 AIR SCW 7064

in the case of JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI AND

ANOTHER vs INDUSIND BANK LTD., AND OTHERS

wherein the Apex Court held that the P.A. holder cannot

depose in place and instead of principal, unless he has got

personal knowledge about the case. The counsel also relied

upon the judgment reported in 1992 AIR SCW 1747 in

the case of JAGDISH SINGH vs NATTHU SINGH with

regard to exercising the power under Section 100, 100A

wherein it is held that when the findings of the Court of

facts vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or

by essentially when the Courts proceeded in a wrong

approach and High Court not precluded from recording

proper findings. The counsel also relied upon the judgment

reported in 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 464 in the case of

CHAWLA MOHAN KRISHNA GUPTA vs NEELGAR

RANGANATH AND ANOTHER wherein also this Court held

that when the Court ignores the material evidence, the

Court can interfere with in a case on concurrent finding

also. The counsel relying upon these judgments would

vehemently contend that even though concurrent finding

was given by both the Courts, this Court can interfere with

the findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate

Court since both the Courts have ignored the material on

record.

10. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent

vehemently contend that in paragraph 9 of the written

statement, the defendants have categorically stated that

there was a partition and the schedule lands and another

land in Sy.No.100/4 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas were

allotted to share of Kenchappa who is the father-in-law of

defendant No.1 and also specifically pleaded that the land

in Sy.No.3/8, 88/4 and 88/10, 108/10 of Nakikere village

were allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The counsel would

vehemently contend that in paragraph 4 of the written

statement specifically denied that the after the death of the

husband of defendant No.1, she never went to her parents

house but admitted that defendant No.1's husband

Kenchappa died in the year 1940 and also specifically

denied the very execution of the gift deed and the same is

also not proved before the Trial Court. The counsel

vehemently contend that it is specifically pleaded that item

Nos.1 to 4 belongs to Kenchappa through the partition. The

counsel also contends that the First Appellate Court in

paragraph 17 given the reasons in detail on re-appreciation

of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record

that the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 4 properties are

allotted in favour of defendant No.1's father-in-law and as a

result, they got mutated the property immediately in the

year 1950 itself and also given the finding considering both

oral and documentary evidence placed on record and even

extracted the admission that there is no any document for

having got divided the property. PW1 also categorically

admitted that he is not aware of the partition. The Court

also taken note of both oral and documentary evidence

placed on record and rightly re-appreciated the same and

also observed that the plaintiff has not produced any

document to show that he has inherited it and earlier to it,

it had fallen to the share of his father in the oral partition

and given definite finding and rightly dismissed the appeal.

The counsel also would vehemently contend that DW1 has

been examined and while executing the power of attorney

reason was given stating that the defendant was illiterate

and DW1 is non other than the grandson of defendant No.1

and son of defendant No.2 hence, he is a family member

and he is not a stranger. The counsel also vehemently

contend that if suit is decreed, the properties which were

allotted in favour of father-in-law of defendant No.1 in the

said oral partition would be taken away and the defendant

would become property less. All these factors are taken

note of by both the Courts and hence, it does not require

any interference.

11. Having heard the respective counsel for the

parties and also on perusal of material on record and also in

keeping the substantial question law framed by this Court

while admitting the appeal, this Court has to take note of

whether both the Courts have committed an error in

ignoring the material on record and whether Section 100

could be invoked in the case on hand. Having considered

the grounds urged in the appeal and also the oral

submissions of the counsel and also the principles laid down

in the judgments referred supra, no doubt, no dispute with

regard to the principles laid down in the judgments that the

witness who have been examined before the Court must

acquaint with the facts of the case. No doubt, the Apex

Court in the judgment with regard to the examination of

P.A. holder held that he should have the acquaintance. In

the case on hand, admittedly, he is not a stranger but he is

the grandson of defendant No.1 and son of defendant No.2

and having perused the power of attorney, a reason has

been assigned for giving the power of attorney. Hence, the

contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that no reason has

been assigned for execution of power of attorney cannot be

accepted and also he is not a stranger, he is a family

member and though he is aged about 37 years at the time

of examination and he has deposed based on the

documentary evidence available on record though he has

not born at the time of the partition. But no dispute with

regard to the partition between the brothers and the same

also evident from the records that which was only a oral

partition and the question is whether they have acted upon

based on the said partition. Hence, the first and foremost

contention that evidence of DW1 cannot be considered as

he has not acquaintance with the facts of the case, cannot

be accepted.

12. Now with regard to the merits of the case is

concerned, no dispute with regard to the relationship

between the parties and also no dispute with regard to the

fact that there was a oral partition. But only contended

that defendant No.1 and her daughter after the death of the

husband of defendant No.1 went and resided in their

parents house. The subject matter of the suit is with

regard to claiming declaration and permanent injunction in

respect of item Nos.1 to 5 properties. Both the Courts

came to the conclusion that item No.5 belongs to the

plaintiff having considered both oral and documentary

evidence placed on record and the said finding is also not

challenged by the defendants by preferring an appeal.

Admittedly, both the Courts given finding that item Nos.1 to

4 allotted to the share of the father-in-law of defendant

No.1 in the said oral partition. This Court has to examine

whether finding of the Trial Court is perverse on account of

non-consideration of documentary evidence and whether

both the Courts have committed an error in drawing

necessary presumption and inference from the entries in

the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule

properties and failure of the plaintiff to prove that the suit

schedule properties fell to his share under the oral partition.

The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the properties

are allotted in the oral partition in favour of his father. In

order to prove the said fact, mainly relies upon the

documents of Ex.P1 to P5 and also other documents and

the counsel relies upon the documents marked by the

defendants themselves contending that the name of

Chigalingappa is found in all the revenue documents.

13. Having considered the material on record, no

doubt, his name was found in the documents of the plaintiff

as well as the defendants which have been produced. But

Court has to analyse whether those documents are based

on any proof with regard to the change of their name

consequent upon the oral partition. The main contention of

the plaintiff that he is the owner in possession of the suit

schedule property acquired under inheritance. The suit

schedule properties A to E are bearing Sy.No.3/9 measuring

1 acre 9 guntas, 88/3 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas, 88/11

measuring 19 guntas, 108/5 measuring 29 guntas and

108/11 measuring 32 guntas. No doubt, the plaintiff also

pleaded that a gift deed was executed in terms of Ex.P6 and

the same is in respect of Sy.Nos.3/8, 88/4, 88/10 and

108/4 and these properties are not the suit schedule

properties. The plaintiff also not claiming any right under

the said gift deed in respect of suit schedule properties. The

main contention of PW1 in his evidence that his father is

also called by name Chigalingappa and Shivalingappa and

he had elder brother by name Kenchappa and they have

got divided the suit schedule properties and suit properties

are fallen to the share of his father but no documents with

regard to the partition is concerned since it was an oral

partition. In the cross-examination, he categorically

admitted that he does not know what happened to the

application filed by him for change of katha. The

defendants are claiming that suit item Nos.1 to 4 were

allotted to the father-in-law of defendant No.1. No doubt,

DW1 appears that he has personal knowledge about the

oral partition.

14. It is important to note that the documents which

have been plaintiff relied upon i.e., Ex.P2- Index of land in

respect of item 'A' property and the same is in the name of

Kenchappa son of Kenchappa and the name of

Chigalingappa is rounded off. Ex.P3 and P4 are the records

of rights pertaining to suit item Nos.B to D properties. But

no extent is mentioned and they are in the name of Sanna

Kenchappa. Ex.P6 is the index of land pertaining to item

No.E property. Admittedly, the defendants are claiming title

by adverse possession in respect of the said property but

the same was not considered by both the Courts. Ex.P7

also discloses the name of Kenchappa in owner column.

Ex.P8 to P11 RTC extracts in respect of item Nos.A to D

which are also in the name of defendant No.2 and

Kenchappa's name is rounded off. Ex.P12 to P19 are the tax

paid receipts and they cannot be a base to comes to a

conclusion. But document of Ex.P25 katha extract of the

year 1961-62 shows the name of Kenchappa s/o

Shivalingappa and also it is in the name of the plaintiff.

15. In order to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff,

except Ex.P1 to P6 and entries found in the year 1961-62,

no other documents placed before the Court. But the fact is

that immediately after the partition, in the year 1950 itself

in respect of item Nos.1 to 4, katha was mutated in favour

of father-in-law of defendant No.1 in IHC No.21/1950-51 in

favour of Kenchappa @ Sanna Kenchappa. No doubt, prior

to that the name of Chigalingappa was found in the revenue

records and the same was not challenged by the plaintiff

when the katha was transferred by the revenue authorities

during the year 1950-51. But the very contention that in

collusion with said Kenchappa they have mutated the katha

in favour of Kenchappa behind the back of the plaintiff.

What made to keep quiet till filing of the suit for seeking the

relief of declaration, no explanation is given by the plaintiff.

The very contention of the defendants that the husband of

defendant No.1 died in the year 1940 and the documents

has been mutated in the year 1950-51 itself. With regard to

the entries in pahani in the year 1961-62 no doubt, the

plaintiff's name is found, but no explanation to that effect.

The said fact is taken by the Trial Court in detail discussing

the same by analyzing both oral and documentary evidence

placed on record. The documents produced by the

defendants which are marked as Ex.P4, P5 and P6 reveal

that the name of husband of defendant No.1 is Kenchappa

and also name of the father-in-law is also Kenchappa. The

Trial Court also taken note that the documents produced by

the plaintiff at Ex.P1 to P6, the name of the father of the

plaintiff appeared in the property as owner and possession

having acquired during the year 1950-51 and khatha has

been mutated in favour of Kenchappa S/o Kenchappa as per

the proceedings IHC 21/1950-51 and if that entries are

behind the back of the plaintiff, the plaintiff ought to have

challenged the same. The very contention that wrong

entries are made cannot be accepted since the proceeding

was taken place in IHC 21/1950-51 in favour of Kenchappa.

The documents produced by the defendants at Ex.D6 is a

extract of pouthi and that register reveals that the katha

has been mutated in the name of defendant No.2 by the

competent authority under its order dated 16.03.1985 in

the proceeding No.1/1984-85. The Trial Court also taken

note of the document at Ex.P25 i.e., the certified copy of

Form No.IV of 1961-62 though reveals the name of the

plaintiff as kathedar to the suit schedule properties but the

contents of said document is contrary to the other revenue

documents pertaining to the said land produced by the

defendants at Ex.D9 to D26.

16. It is also important to note that the defendant in

the written statement specifically took the defence in

paragraph 9 that the lands in Sy.Nos.3/8, 88/4, 88/10,

108/10 of Nakikere village were allotted to the share of the

plaintiff and claimed that suit item Nos.1 to 4 and

Sy.No.100/4 allotted to the share of Kenchappa but no

explanation on the part of the plaintiff with regard to the

specific averments made in the written statement for

allotting the property in favour of the plaintiff's father and if

the same is not allotted, the plaintiff ought to have given an

explanation but none of the documents in respect of those

properties are placed before the Court.

17. The First Appellate Court also while considering

the material on record taken note of the fact that the

plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that he

has inherited item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule property

and the plaintiff has to prove that item Nos.1 to 4 had fallen

to the share of his father in the oral partition but no such

material is placed and hence, comes to the conclusion that

under said circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be said to be

the owner of the said properties. While seeking the relief of

declaration, there must be a material before the Court that

the properties are allotted in favour of the plaintiff in the

said partition and to evident the said fact, no such

documents are placed. Even the Trial Court also while

considering the case of the plaintiff, elaborately discussed

both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and

taken note of the documents at Ex.P1 to P7, the kathedar

name is shown as Chigalingappa S/o Kenchappa which the

plaintiff claims to be name of his father. But the plaintiff's

name is Kenchappa S/o Chigalingappa and more probable

document is the document of IHC 21/1950-51 in which the

katha has been transferred in favour of Kenchappa S/o

Kenchappa. Both the Courts have taken note of the

contents of the document at Ex.P25 which reveals the name

of the plaintiff as khathedar in respect of suit item Nos.1 to

5 of the year 1961-62 and no basis for changing of name of

the plaintiff in respect of item Nos.1 to 5 of the year 1961-

62 and prior to that IHC 21/1950-51 corroborates that

consequent upon the partition between the brothers, katha

was changed in favour of Kenchappa S/o Kenchappa.

18. The very contention of the appellant counsel that

the name of Chigalingappa found in the revenue documents

cannot be a ground to reverse the concurrent finding. No

doubt, the principles laid down in the judgments relied upon

by the appellant counsel is clear that if the material is not

considered and ignored by the respective Courts, the Court

can reverse the said finding by interfering with the

concurrent finding and such circumstances is not warranted

in the case on hand since the plaintiff has not established

that his father had got item Nos.1 to 4 suit schedule

properties in the said partition except relying upon the

name found in the revenue documents and the same is also

not based on any documentary proof that item Nos.1 to 4

properties are allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Hence,

both the Courts comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff

has failed to establish his right, title and possession over

the suit schedule properties particularly in respect of item

Nos.1 to 4 and granted the relief in respect of item No.5 of

the property. Both the Courts taken note of the material on

record. The counter claim made by the defendant in

respect of item Nos.1 to 4 properties is sufficient to hold

that consequent upon the oral partition, the document

immediately came into force that is IHC 21/1950-51 and

these documents are relied upon by both the Courts.

Having considered these materials on record and reasoning

and also taking into note of the substantial question of law

framed by this Court that whether the judgment the Courts

below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is perverse on

account of non-consideration of the documentary evidence

and on account of failure to draw necessary presumption

from the entries in revenue records in respect of the suit

schedule properties cannot be accepted as both the Courts

have taken note of both oral and documentary evidence

placed on record and rightly comes to the conclusion that

the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule

properties are fallen to his share under the admitted oral

partition and in order to come to the other conclusion, there

must be a material on record which has been ignored by

both the Courts and the same is not found in the re-

consideration of material on record. Hence, I answer both

substantial question of law as negative and both the Courts

have not committed an error in appreciating the material on

record.

19. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The regular second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN