Full Judgment Text
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF MAY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
R.F.A. NO.536 OF 2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MALLAMMA
W/O LATE ANNEGOWDA
D/O MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
2. SMT. SAKAMMA
D/O MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT. KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
3. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
W/O GOWDAIAH
D/O MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
4. SHRI. SHIVANNA
S/O MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
2
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
5. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O NANJUNDA
D/O MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
6. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O MAHADEVA
D/O MOGANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
7. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O REVANNA
D/O MOGANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
8. SHRI. M. MAHADEVU
S/O MOGANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
9. SHRI. M. KARIGOWDA
S/O MOGANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
10. SMT. JAYANTHI
W/O LATE MAHADEVU
D/O MOGANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
3
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
11. SMT. INDRA
W/O RAVI
D/O MOGANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SHRI. MALLEGOWDA @ KARIGOWDA
S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
DOING BUSINESS AT
VISHWAS RUBBER PRIVATE LTD.,
NO. 216, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL
AREA, MYSORE-570001.
2. SHRI. MOGANNA
S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
DOING BUSINESS AT
VISHWAS RUBBER PRIVATE LTD.,
NO. 216, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL
AREA, MYSORE-570001.
3. SHRI. KARIGOWDA
S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
DOING BUSINESS AT
VISHWAS RUBBER PRIVATE LTD.,
NO. 216, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL
AREA, MYSORE-570001.
4. SHRI. C.G. CHENNAKESHAVA
S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO. 889, 1ST CROSS
1ST BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR
4
MYSORE-570001
AND ALSO DOING BUSINESS AT
VISHWAS RUBBER PRIVATE LTD.,
NO. 216, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL
AREA, MYSORE-570001.
5. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O KEMPARAJU
D/O KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWLA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
6. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O SWAMY
D/O KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWLA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
7. SMT. YASHODA
W/O MAHADEVA
D/O KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWLA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
8. SMT. ROOPA
W/O JAVAREGOWDA
D/O KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWLA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
9. SHRI. MALLESHA
S/O KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWLA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
5
10. SMT. GAYATHRI
W/O LATE KARIGOWDA AND
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF KARIGOWDA
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWLA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
10(a). KUM. TRIVENI
D/O LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
BEING MINOR, REP BY HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND
MOTHER SMT. GAYATHRI
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWLA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
10(b). MASTER SHIVARAJU
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
BEING MINOR, REP BY HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND
MOTHER SMT. GAYATHRI
R/AT KARAKANA HALLI
YELAWLA HOBLI AND POST
MYSORE TALUK-571130.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV., FOR R4
V/O DTD:30.03.2016 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1-R3 & R7 H/S
R5, R6, R8, R9 & R10 SERVED)
- - -
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.96(1) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:3.1.13 PASSED IN O.S.
NO.1019/11 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, MYSORE, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED U/ORDER
VII RULE 11(d) OF CP, CONSEQUENTLY REJECTING THE PLAINT,
SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for
short) has been filed against the order dated 03.01.2013
passed by the Trial Court by which suit filed by the
appellants seeking the relief of partition and separate
possession has been dismissed in exercise of powers
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code.
2. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to
an agricultural land measuring 2 acres and 30 guntas
situate at Mydanahalli Village Yelawala Hobli, Mysore
Taluk. The aforesaid land was recorded in the revenue
records in the name of defendants 1 to 3. The
defendants 1 to 3 by a registered sale deed dated
08.07.1996 sold the aforesaid land to defendant No.4 for
a consideration of Rs.2,75,000/-. The sale deed contains
a recital as to delivery of possession. Thereafter, the
7
name of respondent No.1 was mutated in the revenue
records.
3. On 05.11.2011, the plaintiffs / appellants who
are children of defendant Nos.1 to 3 viz., the vendors of
defendant No.4 filed a suit seeking the relief of partition
and separate possession inter alia on the ground that
plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 constitute a Joint Hindu
Undivided Family (HUF). It was pleaded that late
Javeregowda who was the common ancestor of plaintiffs
and defendants 1 to 3, was the owner of land measuring
2 acres and 30 guntas situate at Mydanahalli Village
Yelawala Hobli, Mysore Taluk. On death of Javeregowda,
the aforesaid land devolved on defendants 1 to 3 by
survivorship. It was further pleaded that plaintiffs being
the children of defendants 1 to 3 have got undivided
right, title and interest in the aforesaid property and no
partition or division of the land in question has taken
place amongst the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3.
It was also pleaded that for couple of months preceding
8
filing of the suit, defendant No.4 is trying to interfere
with the possession of the plaintiff on the ground that he
has purchased the land in question. It was averred that
cause of action for filing of the suit accrued on
05.11.2011 i.e., the date on which the plaintiffs
demanded partition. Accordingly, the relief of partition
and separate possession in respect of 5/18th share of
plaintiffs as well as 6/21st shares of plaintiffs 6 to 17
was sought.
4. The defendant No.4 filed an application for
rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the
Code inter alia on the ground that he had purchased the
land in question by a registered sale deed dated
08.07.1996 prior to advent of Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, which came into force with
effect from 09.09.2005. It was pleaded that daughters
of a coparcener viz., plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3, 5 to 7, 10, 11
to 15 and 17 have no locus standi to file the suit as they
are not entitled to challenge the validity of the sale deed
9
executed prior to 09.08.2005. It was averred that the
suit challenging the validity of alienation made by Karta
of the family has to be filed within 12 years from the
date of delivery of possession of property to the
purchaser and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation.
It was also averred that some of the plaintiffs were
minor on the date of execution of the sale deed and on
attaining majority, have not challenged the sale deed
within a period of three years. It was also pleaded that
plaintiffs 16 and 17(b) were not even born on the date
of alienation of the land in question. It was pleaded that
the suit is barred under the law as well as by law of
limitation and the same was liable to be dismissed. The
plaintiffs filed an objection statement to the aforesaid
application and asserted that plaintiffs are in possession
of the land in question and prayed for dismissal of the
application.
5. The Trial Court by an order dated 03.01.2013
by taking into account proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu
10
Succession Act as amended with effect from 09.09.2005
inter alia held that daughters of a coparcener have no
locus to question the alienation which was made by
defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 08.07.1996. It was further held
that suit by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in view of
statutory bar contained under Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act as amended with effect from 09.09.2005.
It was also held that suit has neither been filed within a
period of 12 years from the date of execution of the sale
deed nor the same has been filed within a period of 3
years from the date of attaining of majority by the minor
plaintiffs. It was therefore, held that suit is barred by
limitation also. Accordingly, the application filed by
defendant No.4 was allowed and the plaint was rejected.
Out of 17 plaintiffs, 11 plaintiffs alone have preferred
the appeal. The remaining 6 plaintiffs have accepted the
order of dismissal of the suit. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
11
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that appellants were the coparceners and property
belonging to coparcenary could not have been alienated
without consent of the plaintiffs who were coparceners.
It is further submitted that without partition only an
undivided share can be sold but not a specific property.
It is contended that joint possession of the plaintiffs also
cannot be disrupted by such an alienation. Our attention
has also been invited to Article 108 and 109 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. It is also pointed out that the
plaintiffs have asserted that they are in possession of
the property and the issue whether the suit is barred by
limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which
could not have been decided without recording evidence.
In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been
placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'KAMALA
VS. K.T.ESHWAR SA', AIR 2008 SC 3174, 'SURJIT
KUMAR GIL VS. ADARSH KUMAR GIL', AIR 2014 SC
1476, 'BALASARIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS.
12
HANUMAN SEVA TRUST', (2006) 5 SCC 658,
['HARDESH ORES PVT. LTD. VS. M/S HEDE AND
CO', 2007 AIR SCW 3456 AND 'VINEETA SHARMA
VS. RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS', AIR 2020 SC
3717.
7. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.4 submitted that the suit filed by the
plaintiffs is a vexatious suit and even though copy of the
sale deed dated 08.07.1996 executed by defendants 1
to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 has been annexed with
the plaint, yet neither any relief of declaration that the
sale deed does not bind the plaintiffs nor the relief of
setting aside of the sale deed has been prayed for in the
suit. It is urged that deliberately no reference has been
made in the plaint to the sale deed dated 08.07.1996. It
is also pointed out that along with the plaint a copy of
the notice dated 05.11.2011 has also been annexed
from which it is evident that the fact that the sale deed
has been executed in defendant No.4, as well as the fact
13
that in the revenue records the name of defendant No.4
has been mutated, has been admitted. It is also urged
that the daughters of defendant Nos.1 to 3 could not be
treated as coparceners in the year 1996 and some of the
plaintiffs were not even born. It is argued that the Trial
Court on the basis of meticulous appreciation of
material on record has passed the order rejecting the
plaint, which does not call for any interference. In
support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been
placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in
'T.ARIVANDANDAM VS. T.V.SATYAPAL AND
ANOTHER', AIR 1977 SC 2421 , 'I.T.C.LTD. VS.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL', AIR
1998 SC 634, 'PREM SINGH VS. BIRBAL', AIR 2006
SCW 3595 , and 'HARDESH ORES (P) LTD. VS. HEDE
AND CO.', (2007) 5 SCC 614.
8. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, perused the plaint as
well as the documents annexed with it. Before
14
proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant
statutory provisions viz., Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code,
Articles 58 and 59 and 108 and 109 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, and Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, which is reproduced below for the facility of
reference:
11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint
shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a
cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is
undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being
required by the Court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the
Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is
properly valued but the plaint is written
upon paper insufficiently stamped, and
the plaintiff, on being required by the
Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper
within a time to be fixed by the Court,
fails to do so;
15
(d) where the suit appears from
the statement in the plaint to be barred
by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in
duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to
comply with the provisions of rule 9
Provided that the time fixed by
the Court for the correction of the
valuation or supplying of the requisite
stamp-paper shall not be extended unless
the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is
satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented
by any cause of an exceptional nature for
correcting the valuation or supplying the
requisite stamp-paper, as the case may
be, within the time fixed by the Court and
that refusal to extend such time would
cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
58. To obtain any
Three years When the
other declaration.
right to sue
first accrues.
59. To cancel or set
Three years When the
aside an instrument
facts entitling
or decree or for the
the plaintiff
16
rescission of a
to have the
contract.
instrument or
decree
cancelled or
set aside or
the contract
rescinded
first become
known to
him.
108. Suit during the
Twelve years The date of
life of a Hindu or
the
Muslim female by a
alienation.
Hindu or Muslim,
who if the female
died at the date of
instituting the suit,
would be entitled to
the possession of
land, to have an
alienation of such
land made by the
female declared to
be void except for
her life or until her
re-marriage.
109. By a Hindu
Twelve years When the
governed by
alienee takes
Mitakshara law to
possession of
set aside his father's
the property.
17
alienation of
ancestral property.
6(1) Devolution of interest in
coparcenary property. - (1) On and from
the commencement of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a
Joint Hindu family governed by the
Mitakshara law, the daughter of a
coparcener shall. -
(a) by birth become a
coparcener in her own right in the same
manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the
coparcenary property as she would have
had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same
liabilities in respect of the said
coparcenary property as that of a son;
and any reference to a Hindu
Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed
to include a reference to a daughter of a
coparcener:
18
Provided that nothing contained
in this sub-section shall affect or
invalidate any disposition or alienation
including any partition or testamentary
disposition of property which had taken
place before the 20th day of December,
2004.
9. The Supreme Court in ' DAHIBEN VS.
ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI', (2020) 7
SCC 366 . supra after taking note of the previous
decisions viz., 'AZHAR HUSSAIN VS RAJEEV
GANDHI', 1986 SUPP SCC 315, 'LIVERPOOL &
LONDON S.P. & I ASSN. LTD VS. M.V.SEA SUCCESS
I', (2004) 9 SCC 512, 'SALEEM BHAI VS. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA', (2003) 1 SCC 557, SWAMY
ATMANAND VS. SRI.RAMAKRISHNA TAPOVANAM',
(2005) 10 SCC 51, 'T.ARIVINDANANDAM VS.
T.V.SATYAPAL', (1977) 4 SCC 467, 'MADANURI SRI
RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY VS. SYED JALAL', (2017)
13 SCC 174 rendered by it has laid down the following
19
propositions of law with regard to scope and ambit as
well as the parameters which power under Order 7 Rule
11 of the Code has to be exercised:
(i) The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11
is an independent and special remedy which
empowers the court to summarily dismiss the
suit at the threshold if it is satisfied that any of
the grounds contained in Order 7 Rule 11 is
made out.
(ii) The underlying object of Order 7
Rule 11(a) is that if in any suit no cause of
action is disclosed or suit is barred by limitation
under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the court would not
permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily to protract
the proceeding in the suit.
(iii) Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is
cast upon the court to determine whether plaint
discloses cause of action by scrutinizing the
averments made in the plaint read in
conjunction with the documents relied upon or
whether the suit is barred by any law.
20
(iv) Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14
CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint
are required to be taken into consideration for
deciding an application Order 7 Rule 11(a) of
the Code and the Court would determined if the
assertions made in the plaint are contrary to
statutory law or judicial dicta and whether a
case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is
made out.
(v) If on meaningful reading of the
plaint it is found that suit is manifestly
vexatious and without any merit and does not
disclose a right to sue, the court would be
justified in exercising the power under Order 7
Rule 11 of the Code.
(vi) "Cause of action" means every fact
which would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support his right
to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material
facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to
prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs
claimed in the suit.
21
(vii) The power under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code is mandatory in nature and can be
exercised at any stage of the suit viz., either
before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant or before conclusion
of the trial.
(viii) The law does not permit clever
drafting of a plaint, which creates illusions of
cause of action and what is required is that a
clear right must be made out in the plaint. If by
clever drafting, an illusion of a cause of action is
made, it should be nipped in the bud so that
bogus litigation built and at the earliest stage.
(ix) The court must be vigilant against
any camouflage or suppression, and determine
whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and
an abuse of the process of the court.
10. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal
principles, we may advert to the facts of the case on
hand. As per averments made in the plaint itself, the
land in question was the ancestral property of
Javeregowda and the same has devolved on defendants
22
1 to 3 by successorship. The aforesaid property has been
sold by a registered sale deed dated 08.07.1996 by
defendants 1 to 3 to defendant No.4 for a consideration
of Rs.2,75,000/-. The copy of the sale deed has been
enclosed along with the plaint which is evident from the
record. It is pertinent to note that Supreme Court in
VINEETA SHARMA supra has held that the rights can be
claimed by the daughters born earlier with effect from
09.09.2005 as provided in Section 6(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act as to the disposition, alienation, partition
or testamentary disposition which has taken place before
20.12.2004. In the instant case, the alienation has taken
place on 08.07.1996 and the claim of daughters of
defendants 1 to 3 viz., plaintiffs 1 to 7, 10 and 11 /
appellants 1 to 7, 10 and 11 is barred by proviso to
Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act No.39 of 2005 with
effect from 09.09.2005. Thus claim of aforesaid plaintiffs
is barred by law. It is pertinent to note that plaintiffs 8
23
and 9 / appellants 8 and 9 were minors on the date of
execution of the sale deed and on attaining majority
they have not filed the suit within a period of three
years.
11. We are conscious of the settled legal
proposition that issue of limitation is normally a mixed
question of law and fact. In this case the averments
made in the plaint and the documents annexed with it
namely sale deed and notice sent prior to institution of
suit exfacie show that suit is barred by limitation. It is
pertinent to note that the instant case is a case of
creating the illusory cause of action. It is relevant to
take note of the reliefs claimed in the suit which are
reproduced below for the facility of reference:
The plaintiff prays for judgment and
decree against the defendants
(a) For partition and separate
possession of the suit schedule land as
follows:
i) 5/18th share of plaintiffs 1 to 5.
24
ii) 6/21st share of plaintiffs 6 to 11.
iii) 6/21st share of Plaintiffs 12 to 17.
(b) Preliminary decree be passed
accordingly in favour of plaintiffs.
(c) For costs of the suit and
(d) For such other reliefs as this
Hon'ble court may be pleased to grant
under the circumstances of the case.
The plaintiffs have annexed the copy of the sale
deed along with the plaint. However, in the plaint, no
relief either with regard to cancellation of the sale deed
or the declaration that the sale deed does not bind the
plaintiffs has been sought. In the absence of such a
relief with regard to either cancellation or declaration of
the sale deed, the reliefs prayed for in the suit cannot be
granted to the plaintiffs. It is noteworthy that relief of
either cancellation or declaration that the sale deed does
not bind the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Therefore,
intentionally, relief with regard to sale deed has not
been claimed in the plaint. In the plaint by an astute
drafting, the illusion with regard to accrual of cause of
25
action, on the date of sending the notice seeking
partition from defendant Nos.1 to 3 has been created
and deliberately the date of execution of the sale deed in
the plaint has not been mentioned though a copy of the
same is annexed with the plaint.
12. In this case though by an astute drafting the
plaintiffs have made an attempt to bring the suit within
limitation, but they have failed in attempt to do so. The
court has to be vigilant against any camouflage or
suppression and is under an obligation to ascertain
whether a litigation is utterly vexatious or is an abuse of
process of the court. In the instant case, it is axiomatic
that the defendants 1 to 3 got filed a vexatious suit
which is barred by limitation by their children in
collusion with their children got filed a suit through
them, with an oblique motive. The suit has been filed
after a period of 15 years after the execution of the sale
deed and the plea that the cause of action accrued to
the plaintiffs on the date when they demanded partition
26
is wholly misconceived. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is
an abuse of process of law and a quietus to the same
has rightly been put by the Trial Court. The order passed
by the Trial Court is based meticulous appreciation of
material available on record, which does not suffer from
any infirmity.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby
dismissed with costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
ss