Do revenue records such as a patta or an adangal extract by themselves confer title to immovable property?

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated January 6, 2004 passed in A.S. No.235 of 2002 by 'the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi' ['First Appellate Court' for convenience], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated August 9, 2001 passed in O.S. No.26 of 1995 by 'the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi' ['Trial Court' for convenience] was reversed.

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit. PLAINTIFF'S CASE

Case of the plaintiff is that, the total extent of Suit Survey No.293/3 of Ulagankathan Village is 2 Acre 75 Cents. The entire extent of the said survey number was jointly owned by the plaintiff's father - Annamalai and one Velayutham. They enjoyed the same equally; the western portion was enjoyed by plaintiff's father and the eastern portion was enjoyed by Velayutham. Then Velayutham sold the eastern portion enjoyed by him to the plaintiff's father vide Sale Deed dated June 26, 1924. Thus, the entire extent of 2 Acre 75 Cents came to be owned by the plaintiff's father. 3.1. The plaintiff's father passed away about 50 years prior to the Suit, leaving behind three sons, namely, Kulandaivel, plaintiff - Ramar and Raju, as his legal heirs. In the family partition effected in the year 1977, the aforesaid extent of 2 Acre 75 Cents in Suit Survey No.293/3 was allotted entirely to the plaintiff. However, due to a clerical error, the extent was incorrectly described in the Partition Deed as 2 Acres and 5 Cents inadvertently omitting 70 Cents. The boundaries of the property measuring 2 Acre 75 Cents were, nevertheless, correctly specified in the said Partition Deed. The said inadvertently omitted 70 Cents forms the suit property herein. 3.2. According to the plaintiff, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 2 Acre 75 Cents and patta has also been issued in his name. It has been vested with his family for more than 70 years prior to the Suit. Velayutham's legal heirs without any right, executed Sale Deed dated April 13, 1985 in respect of 70 Cents thereof viz., suit property in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff contends that the defendant has no manner of right, title or interest in the suit property. Earlier, the plaintiff instituted a Suit in O.S. No.756 of 1988 against the defendant, which was decreed in his favour on July 29, 1994. Notwithstanding the said Decree, the defendant allegedly trespassed into the suit property on September 20, 1994 and cultivated the same with a crop. Hence the Suit for declaration, recovery of possession, mesne profits and costs. DEFENDANT'S CASE

The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations contained in the plaint. The entire extent of 2 Acres 75 Cents in Suit Survey No.293/3 was owned by Velayutham. On June 26, 1924, the eastern portion measuring 1 Acre 38 Cents was sold by Velayutham to the plaintiff's father - Annamalai. The western portion remained with Velayutham. The plaintiff's father sold the said eastern extent of 1 Acre 38 Cents purchased from Velayutham to one Ramasamy. After the demise of said Ramasamy, plaintiff's father and plaintiff's brother - Raju purchased back the same from the family of late Ramasamy; vide Sale Deed dated December 30, 1942, the plaintiff's father purchased back 69 Cents from Poomaalai, son of late Ramasamy, and vide December 16, 1969, the plaintiff's brother - Raju purchased back 69 Cents from legal heirs of Venkatachala son of late Ramasamy. 4.1. In a family arrangement, the entire western portion of Suit Survey No.293/3 measuring 1 Acre 37 Cents was allotted to Velayutham's daughter - Sivamalai. Vide registered Sale Deed dated April 13, 1985, the defendant purchased 71 Cents within specific four boundaries from the Velayutham's legal heirs, which is the suit property. Accordingly, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In these circumstances, the plaintiff obtained patta under Updating Registry Scheme (UDR) for the entire extent of 2 Acre 75 Cents in the Suit Survey No.293/3 clandestinely. No notice was issued to the defendant while granting the said patta. The plaintiff had no title nor possession over the suit property at any point of time. Accordingly, the defendant prayed to dismiss the Suit.

Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.48 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendant, defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex-B.1 & Ex-B.2 were marked.

After full-fledged trial, the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff has proved his title to the entire extent of 2 Acre 75 Cents in the Suit Survey No.293/3. The defendant's vendor had no right to sell the suit property in favour of the defendant. The defendant is currently in unlawful possession of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the plaint. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the Suit in favour of the plaintiff.

Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. After hearing both sides, it concluded that the plaintiff has not satisfactorily proved his case that, originally, total extent of 2 Acre 75 Cents in Suit Survey No.293/3 was jointly owned by his father - Annamalai and Velayutham. Further the plaintiff to establish that his father was in possession and enjoyment of the western 1 Acre 35 Cents therein. Further, in Ex-A.8 - Partition Deed, Theervai in respect of the property allotted to the plaintiff is proportionate to 2 Acres 5 Cents, which belies his plea of typographical error in the extent. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court.

Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was admitted on July 1, 2004 on the following substantial questions of law: "1) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in law in discarding exhibits A.44 to 47 in contravention to the provisions of Section 13 and 40 of the Evidence Act? 2. When Exs.A.1 to A.48, title deeds, pattas, chittas, adangal extracts and kist receipts would clearly establish the case of the appellant, whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in law in non-suiting the appellant by eschewing the material documents? and 3. Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in law in holding that the appellant had not established his entitlement for the relief of declaration, by overlooking the title deeds on record?"

Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.PV Law Associates, Counsel on record for the appellant / respondent / plaintiff would argue that the total extent in Suit Survey No.293/3 viz., 2 Acre 75 Cents was originally owned by Velayutham and plaintiff's father - Annamalai. Its eastern portion measuring 1 Acre 38 Cents was enjoyed by Velayutham and its western side measuring 1 Acre 37 Cents was enjoyed by plaintiff's father. By Ex.A.1 - Sale Deed dated June 26, 1924, Velayutham sold the eastern 1 Acre 38 Cents in favour of plaintiff's father - Annamalai. Thus, Annamalai became entitled to the entire extent of 2 Acre 75 cents in the Suit Survey No.293/3. 9.1. He would further submit that, after the purchase under Ex-A.1, plaintiff's father - Annamalai executed Ex.A.2 - Sale Deed dated January 09, 1930 in respect of the property purchased vide Ex.A.1 i.e., eastern 1 Acre 38 Cents to one Ramasamy. Vide Exs.A.3 and A.4 - Sale Deeds, plaintiff's father - Annamalai and one of his son - Raju purchased back the property covered under Ex.A2. Thus, the plaintiff's family got back their entitlement to the entire extent of 2 Acre 75 Cents in Suit Survey No.293/3. 9.2. He would submit that after execution of Ex.A.1 - Sale deed in favour of plaintiff's father, Velayutham had no property left in Suit Survey No.293/3. Hence, Ex.A.42 - Sale Deed allegedly executed by the legal heirs of Velayutham in favour of defendant on April 13, 1985 is invalid as the defendant's vendors had no saleable right in the Suit survey number. The same was executed by taking advantage of the typographical error that crepted in Ex-A.8 - Partition Deed qua plaintiff's share qua its extent. Ex-A.9 - UDR Patta would show that the plaintiff's family has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 2Acres 75 cents in Suit Survey No.293/3. Further, Ex-A.41 - Adangal Extract for the Fasali year between 1377 and 1388, in respect of the entire extent in Suit survey number stands in the name of plaintiff's brother - Kulandaivel. Further, learned Senior Counsel would refer to Ex-A.43 - Partition Deed dated August 29, 1965 entered between legal heirs of Velayutham and submit that Suit Survey No.293/3 does not find place in the description of property therein. If really Velayutham's legal heirs had any interest in the Suit survey number, they would have included the same in the Ex-A.43 - Partition Deed. In these circumstances, on the strength of the alleged Ex.A.42 - Sale Deed, the defendant trespassed into the suit property high handedly and he got into illegal possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Trial Court, after carefully considering the evidence and materials in the right manner, decreed the Suit. But the First Appellate Court erred in not considering the evidence available on record in the right perspective and allowed the appeal to dismiss the Suit. Hence, the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court deserves to be interfered with. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Second Appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court and sustain that of the Trial Court.

Per contra, Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 to 7 would argue that the plaintiff failed to prove that the entire extent of 2 Acre 75 Cents was owned by Velayutham and plaintiff's father - Annamalai jointly. He would assert that the entire extent of Survey No.293/3 was originally owned by Velayutham alone. Ex-B.1 - Resettlement Adangal Karnam Copy (before 1980) is a separate patta in respect of the entire extent in Suit survey number which stands in the name of Velayutham. Velayutham being the sole owner of the entire extent, sold the eastern portion thereof measuring 1 Acres 38 Cents to plaintiff's father - Annamalai, vide Ex-A.1 - Sale Deed, who in turn sold the same in favour of one Ramasamy vide Ex-A.2 - Sale Deed. However, the plaintiff's family subsequently purchased back the property covered under Ex-A.1 - Sale Deed vide Ex-A.3 and Ex-A.4 - Sale Deeds. The plaintiff did not produce any document to show that the western 1 Acre 38 Cents was in possession and enjoyment of his father or his family. 10.1. Further, as regards the plaintiff's contention that a typographical error crept in Ex.A.8 - Partition Deed consequent to which the extent of plaintiff's share allotted thereunder is wrongly shown as 2 Acres 5 Cents instead of 2 Acres 75 Cents, the learned Counsel would invite attention to the description of property in Ex.A.8 - Partition Deed. He would submit that, the plaintiff's share has been described as lying to the east of Nachiappan's property & Venkatachalam's property. It means that Venkatachalam's property is lying on the western side of plaintiff's share. Venkatachalam is none other than the husband of Velayutham's daughter - Sivamalai. Defendant's vendor under Ex-A.42 - Sale Deed includes Velayutham's legal heirs including his daughter - Sivamali. As it could be seen, Velayutham had some property in Suit survey number even according to the plaintiff's Partition Deed; the plaintiff's assertion that Velayutham had no saleable interest in Suit survey number is belied by their own Partition Deed, thereby probablizing the defendant's case. The plaintiff is estopped from contending otherwise. He would go on to contend that, the plaintiff's contention qua typographical error is false and only 2 Acres 5 Cents as mentioned in Ex-A.8 - Partition Deed was allotted to him. 10.2. He would further point out that the Theervai in respect of the property allotted in favour of plaintiff as mentioned in Ex-A.8 - Partition Deed, is proportional to 2 Acres 5 Cents, which also belies the plaintiff's contention qua typographical error. In these circumstances, the First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the entire facts and circumstances and accordingly allowed the First Appeal dismissing the Suit. There is no warrant to interfere with it. Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss the Second Appeal.

This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record in light of the Substantial Questions of Law.

For ease of appreciation, this Court would like to set out the following rough diagram representing the land in Suit Survey No.293/3, inspired from the Field Measurement Book in Ex-A.9 - UDR Patta in respect of Suit Survey No.293/3:

To establish his case, plaintiff must first establish that the total extent of Suit Survey No.293/3 viz., 2 Acres 75 Cents, was under the ownership of his father or family.

Vide Ex-A.1 - Sale Deed dated June 26, 1924, Velayutham sold eastern side of the Suit survey number measuring 1 Acre 38 Cents in favour of the plaintiff's father - Annamalai. Plaintiff's father in turn sold the property covered thereunder in favour of one Ramasamy under Ex-A.2 - Sale Deed dated January 9, 1930. Subsequently, under Ex-A.3 - Sale Deed dated December 30, 1942, plaintiff's father purchased back 69 Cents out of the total 1 Acre 38 Cents covered under Ex-A.2 - Sale Deed, from one of the sons of said Ramasamy namely Poomaalai. Thereafter, under Ex-A.4 - Sale Deed dated December 16, 1969, plaintiff's brother - Raju purchased the remaining 69 Cents in the property covered under Ex-A.2, from legal heirs of one of the sons of said Ramasamy. Thus, from Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.4, it could be seen that the eastern 1 Acre 38 Cents in the Suit survey number was under the ownership of the plaintiff's family.

As regards the remaining extent in the Suit survey number, viz., western portion measuring 1 Acre 37 Cents, in order to prove his case that it has remained under the possession and enjoyment of his father and after his lifetime, under that of his family, the plaintiff's side would primarily rely on Ex-A.7 to Ex-A.9, Ex-A.41, and Ex-A.43 to Ex-A.48.

Before discussing those documents, this Court would like to discuss Ex-A.2 - Sale Deed dated January 09, 1930, whereby plaintiff's father - Annamalai sold the eastern 1 Acres 38 Cents purchased under Ex.A1, to one Ramasamy. The recitals contained therein would read to the effect that the entire extent in Suit survey number was originally owned and enjoyed by Velayutham vide Patta No.47 and the eastern half thereof was sold under Ex-A.1. This is contrary to the plaintiff's case that the entire extent in Suit survey number was jointly owned by Velayutham and plaintiff's father - Annamalai and Velayutham was enjoying the eastern 1 Acre 38 Cents thereof while plaintiff's father was enjoying the western 1 Acre 37 Cents thereof.

Coming to the documents primarily relied on the plaintiff's side, Ex-A.7 is a separate patta in Patta No.240 issued before the UDR Scheme. It stands in the name of plaintiff's brother – Kulandaivel in respect of the entire extent of Suit survey number. But, perusal of Ex-A.40 reveals that another separate patta in Patta No.218 has been issued in the name of one Paramasivam in respect of the very same property. On the face of them, these two pattas appear to be contemporaneous documents. They are not joint pattas. As two separate pattas has been issued in respect of the same property in favour of two different individuals, this Court is not inclined to consider them as proper evidence to show possession. Nonetheless, Theervai mentioned for the total 2 Acres 75 Cents is Rs.3.08/- in both the pattas. As Theervai remains the same in both, this Court will be considering Ex-A.7 and Ex-A.40 qua Theervai later.

Ex-A.8 is the Partition Deed dated December 27, 1971 entered among plaintiff and his brother, whereby, according to the plaintiff, the entire extent of 2 Acres 75 Cents in Suit Survey No.293/3 was allotted in his favour, however, a typographical error has caused it to be erroneously mentioned as 2 Acres 5 Cents. The plaintiff would contend that though the extent is mentioned wrongly due to a typographical error, the four boundaries specified would go on to show that the plaintiff was allotted the entire extent. While that is the plaintiff's side contention, perusal of the Ex-A.8 would reveal that the property allotted thereunder to the plaintiff is bounded by Nachiappan's property and Venkatachalam's property on the west. Similarly, in Ex-A.4 - Sale Deed dated December 16, 1969, whereby plaintiff's brother - Raju purchased back 69 Cents forming part of the eastern 1 Acre 38 Cents from the legal heirs of one of Ramasamy's son, the western boundary of the subject property therein has been described as property of Sivamalai. As admitted by the plaintiff in his evidence as P.W.1, Venkatachalam is none other than husband of Sivamalai, the daughter of Velayutham. This leads this Court to the conclusion that, even as per Ex-A.4 - Sale Deed and Ex-A.8 - Partition Deed, one of the defendant's vendor under Ex-A.42 - Sale Deed namely Sivamalai, has some property forming part of the western portion of the Suit survey number. In other words, the plaintiff was not allotted the entire extent of 2 Acres 75 Cents in Suit survey number but only a portion thereof. 18.1. Further, as stated supra, as it could be seen from Ex-A.7 and Ex-A.40, Theervai for 2 Acres 75 Cents is Rs.3.08/-. But the Theervai mentioned for the property allotted to the plaintiff, is only Rs.2.30/-, which when calculated, comes proportionate to 2 Acres 5 Cents. If really the plaintiff's share was mentioned as 2 Acres 5 Cents instead of 2 Acres 75 Cents only due to a typographical error, then the Theervai should have been mentioned for 2 Acres 75 Cents as Rs.3.08/-. The fact that Theervai mentioned for the property allotted to the plaintiff under Ex-A.8 - Partition Deed is for 2 Acres 5 Cents and not 2 Acres 75 Cents, supports the case of the defendant. 18.2. Moreover, the plaintiff in his evidence, has admitted that the four boundaries specified for the property allotted to him under Ex-A.8, is that of 2 Acres 5 Cents and not the entire extent of 2 Acres 75 Cents in the Suit survey number. Furthermore, the plaintiff / P.W.1 during his cross-examination, has stated that there exist no document (of title) to show that the western half was owned by his father. This Court deems to extract relevant portion of plaintiff / P.W.1's evidence hereunder: ''. . . ghfg;gphptpidg ; gj;jpuj;jpy ; 7tJ ,d mapl;lkhf 2 Vf;fh ; 75 brd;oy; 2 Vf;fh; 5 brz;l; vd;W Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJ/ 2 Vf;fh; 5 brz;Lf;F rf;Fge;jp cs;sJ/ mjpy ; ehr;rpag;g cilahh ; epyj;jpw;Fk;. bt';flh$y cilahh ; epyj;jpw;Fk; fpHf;F vd;why; rhpjhd;/ me;j bt';flh$y cilahh; vd;gth; rptkhiyapd; fzth;/ vd ; ghfk ; 2 Vf;fh ; 5 brz;l;Lf;F nky;g[wk ; bt';flh$y cilahh ; epyk ; vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ghfg ; gj;jpuj;jpy ; bkhj;j tp[!;jPuzk ; rf;Fge;jp Fwpg;gplhkYk;. bkhj;j tp!;jPuzj;jpy; rf;Fge;jp Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ / /''

Ex-A.43 is the Partition Deed dated August 29, 1965 entered among legal heirs of Velayutham. It is true that Suit survey number much less the western half thereof, does not find place in it. The reason assigned by the defendant is that while the eastern half of Suit survey number was admittedly sold under Ex-A.1, the western half was allotted to Velayutham's daughter in an oral arrangement much before Ex-A.43 - Partition Deed and hence, it did not find place in it. To be noted, in Ex.A.43 - Partition Deed, no property was allotted to Sivamalai and she was not a party therein. As it could be seen from the above discussion, even as per Ex-A.4 - Sale Deed and the plaintiff's Partition Deed in Ex-A.8, a part on the western portion of the Suit survey number is owned by Velayutham's daughter - Sivamalai. Hence, this Court finds the reason assigned by the defendant is satisfactory. Therefore, the argument that if really Velayutham's legal heirs had any interest in the Suit survey number they would have included the same in the Ex-A.43 - Partition Deed, does not hold water.

Ex-A.44 is the plaint and Ex-A.45 is the Decree in an earlier Suit in O.S. No.786 of 1987. It was filed by one Kannusamy against the present plaintiff seeking recovery of possession in respect of 69 Cents forming the eastern portion of the western half measuring 1 Acres 37 Cents in Suit survey number. Though the said Suit was dismissed for default after filing of written statement, the plaint description of property therein would show that the western boundary of the suit property therein has been described as the defendant's property and Nachiappan's property. The following rough diagram may be referred to for better understanding:

Similarly, from Ex-A.46 and Ex-A.47 - Judgment and Decree in another Suit filed against the present plaintiff in O.S. No.794 of 1994 by said Kannusamy's son in respect of the very same property (suit property in O.S. No.786 of 1987), it could be seen that it was disposed of on merits. Even there, the suit property therein has been described as bounded by the defendant's property on the west. Moreover, the defendant, who purchased the suit property much before the aforesaid two Suits, is not a party to either of the Suits and the suit property therein is different from the suit property herein and hence, the Judgments and Decrees therein would not be binding upon him. In these circumstances, the First Appellate Court is justified in not considering Ex-A.44 to Ex-A.47 in favour of plaintiff and the same cannot be said to be in contravention of Sections 13 and 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Substantial Question of Law No.(i) is answered accordingly.

Moving on, Ex-A.48 is the Decree in an earlier Suit filed by the present plaintiff in O.S. No.756 of 1988 against the present defendant seeking declaration, injunction and alternate relief of recovery of possession in respect of 44 Cents situate in Survey No.293/4A. The said Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff. This Decree however would not help in deciding the present Suit, as there is one thing clear from Ex-A.48 - there was no relief sought against the defendant's Sale Deed in Ex-A.42. Nor does the same appear to be under challenge. The plaintiff ought to have filed the Judgment or the plaint therein, but he failed to do so.

It is true that Ex.A9 - UDR Patta and Ex.A.41 - Adangal Extract for the Fasli Year 1377 to 1381 stand in the name of plaintiff's brother - Kulandaivel. It is settled law that, the revenue records alone does not confer any title or right over the suit property. As the other compelling evidence available on record shows otherwise, this Court is of the view that Ex-A.9 and Ex-A.41 are not sufficient for the plaintiff to assert his title over the entire extent of Suit survey number.

From the above narrative, it could be seen that the documents primarily relied on the side of plaintiff do not satisfactorily establish his case. The plaintiff has miserably failed to establish that the western 1 Acre 37 Cents in the Suit survey number was owned by his father or family at any point of time and thereby, failed to establish his title over the entire extent of Suit survey number. On the other hand, the defendant's case is that the western side 1 Acre 37 cents was orally allotted to Sivamalai, the daughter of Velayutham in an oral arrangement. Thereafter, vide Ex.A.42 - Sale Deed, he purchased the western most extent of 71 Cents in the Suit survey number from the legal heirs of Velayutham including Sivamalai. The property covered under Ex-A.42 is the suit property herein. Ex-B.1 - Karnam Adangal Record standing in the name of Velayutham in respect of the entire extent of Suit survey number, which has been admitted by D.W.1 in his cross-examination as issued during resettlement in 1919, probablizes that the entire extent of Suit survey number was originally owned by Velayutham. Only thereafter, Velayutham executed Ex-A.1 - Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff's father in respect of the eastern 1 Acres 38 Cents. Further, under Ex-B.2 - Settlement Deed dated March 2, 1926, Velayutham settled the entire extent in Suit survey number and some more properties in favour of his wife and minor son. Though the same is invalid qua the eastern 1 Acre 38 Cents already sold under Ex-A.1, it can be taken to show that the entire extent of Suit survey number was owned by Velayutham. As it could be seen from the above, the documents let in by the plaintiff support the case of the defendant. Admittedly, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, that is why the plaintiff has sought for the relief of recovery of possession as well. In the absence of title, the plaintiff cannot claim the suit property. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the defendant has established his case by way of preponderance of probabilities.

As regards Substantial Question of Law Nos.(ii) and (iii), admittedly plaintiff does not claim adverse possession; he claims antecedent title over the western portion of the Suit survey number measuring 1 Acres 37 Cents including the suit property, which title must be proved by adducing sufficient evidence. As stated above, the plaintiff has failed to let in satisfactory evidence to prove his title over the suit property. The plaintiff has not let in any acceptable document proving his alleged title qua the western 1 Acres 37 Cents in the Suit survey number and he himself has admitted that no document of title is available qua western 1 Acre 37 Cents as stated above. It is settled law that mere revenue records do not confer title. And in view of the relief of recovery of possession sought for by the plaintiff, the defendant's possession on the date of Suit is admitted. Preponderance of probabilities lies in favour of the defendant as stated above. In these circumstances, the First Appellate Court after considering the entire evidence as well as the facts and circumstances, rightly allowed the Appeal Suit and non-suited the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Substantial Question of Law Nos.(ii) & (iii) are answered accordingly in favour of the defendant. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court is confirmed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.