P. Veeraswamy and Others vs Panguru Seethammagari Arya Vysya Dharma Sathram

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—Both the appeals are between the same parties. They arise from the decrees in O.S. Nos. 132 of 1986 and 102 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O.S. No. 132 of 1986. The factual background, in brief, is as under:

One Sri Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty succeeded to or acquired a fairly vast extent of movable and immovable property. That included a house situated at New Street, Tirupati and about Acs. 40.00 of land in Survey Nos. 296 and 302 of a Village neighbouring Tirupati, Chittoor District. His first wife Seethamma is said to have died issueless and he married another woman, whose name, too is Seethamma. In the entire proceedings, reference to the wife of Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty shall be, to her. His second wife pre-deceased him.

Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty is said to have executed a deed of settlement in the year 1925 settling the entire property upon his wife limited to her life interest and providing for reversion thereof to him, in the event of her dying earlier to him in point of time. Later on, he is said to have executed a deed of relinquishment in respect of his right as reversioner. Seethamma is said to have executed a will dated 04.04.1926, directing that after her death, the house shall be converted into a Choultry for the exclusive benefit of pilgrims of Vysya Community, who visit Tirumala. It was also her testament that the income derived from the landed property shall be utilized for the maintenance of the Choultry, performance of certain religious and spiritual functions in different Temples and provision of scholarship to the students belonging to Vysya Community studying in an educational institution at Tirupati. Over the period, the Choultry was being administered by a Trust Board.

The Trust Board of the Choultry filed O.S. No. 132 of 1986 against the defendants for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule proprieties. They pleaded that on account of the increase in the value of the landed property, the defendants therein are trying to encroach into the land and to alienate the same, for their personal benefit. A detailed reference was made to the various proceedings that ensued in respect of the property.

During the pendency of that suit, defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 132 of 1986 and four others filed O.S. No. 102 of 1992 in the same Court against the plaintiff in O.S. No. 132 of 1986 and ten others including the District Collector, Chittoor for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for injunction to restrain the defendants therein or the persons claiming through them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and if the Court takes the view that they are not in possession, for recovery thereof. The plea raised in the written statement filed in O.S. No. 132 of 1986 was incorporated in the plaint in O.S. No. 102 of 1992. Similarly, the contents of the plaint in O.S. No. 132 of 1986 constituted the gist of the written statement filed in O.S. No. 102 of 1992.

The plea of the defendants was that the suit schedule property i.e., land in two survey numbers is covered by the provisions of the A.P. Andhra Area Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)

Act (for short ''the Act'') and that after due inquiry, the Inam Tahsildar, Chandragiri took the view that (a) the lands are in an Inam village; (b) they are ryotwari in character; and (c) they are not held by any institution. It was further pleaded that a patta contemplated u/s 7 of the Act was issued in favour of Subrahmanyam Chetty, father of defendant No. 1 in the year 1960.

The trial Court decreed O.S. No. 132 of 1986 through its judgment, dated 17.02.1992. A.S. No. 421 of 1992 is filed against the said decree. O.S. No. 102 of 1992 was dismissed by the trial Court, through its judgment, dated 28.07.1999. A.S. No. 2734 of 1999 is filed against the same.

Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the suit schedule property was declared and notified as inam and inam patta was issued in favour of Subrahmanyam Chetty in the year 1960 and the plaintiff-choultry did not challenge the same at any point of time, much less did it take steps to obtain the patta. He contends that once the patta has become final, title stood vested in Subrahmanyam Chetty and after his death, his legal representatives i.e., defendants succeeded to the property. He contends that the various documents said to have been executed by Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty or his wife Seethamma were not proved as required under law and that the trial Court was not at all justified in taking the same into account. He further submits that even in respect of the documents said to have been executed by those two persons, no one connected therewith were examined and they cannot be said to have been proved. It is also his case that the various suspicious circumstances that surrounded the will said to have been executed by Seethamma remain unexplained and that such a will, cannot give raise to any rights. He submits that assuming that the settlement deed executed by Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty is true, it was only a life interest, that was conferred upon Seethamma and the subsequent deed of relinquishment did not make any difference.

Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that the so-called inam patta was nothing but a concocted document and that the same was pressed into service for the first time after several decades. He contends that the very filing of the certified copies of the application and enquiry report obtained, just before the filing of O.S. No. 102 of 1992 and failure to examine anyone connected therewith throws any amount of doubt as to the genuinity thereof. He submits that the necessity for the plaintiff to challenge the so-called patta did not arise, since it was almost non-existent. Learned counsel further submits that when the 1st defendant filed an independent suit being O.S. No. 73 of 1979, wherein he categorically stated that the suit schedule properties were endowed to the Choultry by late Seethamma and complained mismanagement thereof by the Trust Board, it was not at all open to him to plead otherwise. He submits that the finding recorded by the Court in O.S. No. 73 of 1979 operates as issue estoppel and the defendants can neither maintain an independent suit nor can oppose the claim of the plaintiff.

Learned counsel submits that the fictitious nature of the claim of the defendants is evident from the fact that none of them have exercised any rights of ownership, though the patta is said to have been granted in the year 1960. He submits that it is the defendants, that have filed declaration in respect of the suit schedule property under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act and on the other hand, the plaintiff did not file any such declaration. It is also his case that obviously to avoid the questioning in relation to his plea in O.S. No. 73 of 1979, the deceased-first defendant Veera Swamy when alive did not enter the witness box, having filed O.S. No. 102 of 1992 and thereby, the so-called inam patta or the other documents remained unproved.

As observed earlier, these two appeals arise out of two suits being O.S. No. 132 of 1986 (for short ''the first suit'') filed by the plaintiff and O.S. No. 102 of 1992 (for short ''the second suit'') filed by the defendants. Though O.S. No. 102 of 1992 was very much pending, by the time O.S. No. 132 of 1986 was disposed of on 17.02.1992 and parties to both the suits are common, no efforts were taken to get them clubbed. O.S. No. 102 of 1992 was heard along with O.S. No. 280 of 1991, which is not the subject matter of the present appeals.

The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

O.S. No. 132 of 1986:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for?

O.S. No. 102 of 1992:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule mentioned property as prayed for?

Whether he is entitled for permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 10 as prayed for?

Whether he is entitled for delivery of possession as alternative plea as pleaded in his plaint?

Whether the plaint schedule mentioned property is the schedule property of late Seethamma, if so, whether the will alleged to have been executed by her dated 4-4-1926 is binding on the plaintiff?

The evidence in the first suit comprised of depositions of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs. A.1 to A.22 and depositions of D.Ws. 1 to 3 and Exs. B.1 to B.17. Similarly, the evidence in the second suit comprised of the depositions of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Exs. A.1 to A.39 and D.Ws. 1 to 5 and Exs. B.1 to B.79. There is overlapping of oral and documentary evidence in both the suits.

While the first suit was decreed through judgment, dated 17.02.1992, the second suit was dismissed, vide judgment dated 28.07.1999. Since the common arguments were advanced in both the appeals, we are of the view that the following points arise for consideration:

Whether the property owned by Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty was settled upon his wife Seethamma or whether any intestate succession has taken place in relation thereto?

Whether the settlement of the suit schedule property said to have been made by Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty in favour of his wife through Ex. A.17 dated 07.11.1984 is true and genuine?

Whether Panguluri Seethamma executed any will bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of the Trust? And

Whether Panguluri Veera Swami, the 1st defendant in the 1st suit and the original plaintiff in the second suit, proved his claim vis-�-vis the suit schedule properties and whether the inam patta and other related documents marked as Ex. A.6 dated 29.12.1960 and other related documents marked as Exs. A.3, A.4 and A.5 in the second suit can be taken as proved.

Panguluri family owned vast extents of properties even by 19th century. At the beginning of 20th century, the joint family comprised of three brothers viz., Bala Gurunadham Chettry, Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty, Chinna Kuppayya Chetty. Bala Gurunadham Chetty is the paternal grand father of the plaintiff in the second suit i.e., Veeraswamy. The partition among the three brothers referred to above took place through a document, dated 31.12.1907. About 10 years thereafter, two brothers viz., Bala Gurunadham Chetty and China Kuppayya Chettry sold their shares in favour of Kuppu Rama Swami Chetty through documents, dated 05.02.1918 and 14.02.1918 marked as Exs. A.15 and A.16 in the first suit. The plea of Veeraswamy that the family of their grand fathers remained joint and on the death of Kuppu Rama Swami Chetty, the property devolved upon him as the surviving coparcener becomes unbelievable in view of Exs. A.15 and A.16.

On 07.11.1924, Kuppu Ramaswami Chettry executed a deed of settlement marked as Ex. A.17 directing that his wife Seethama shall have the life interest in the properties and in case, she pre-deceases him, the property would revert back to him. The defendants are not able to point out that Ex. A.17 suffers from any infirmity. Being a document, almost a century old, hardly any suspicion exists about it. This was followed by Ex. A.18 dated 21.12.1925 through which Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty relinquished his vested remainder under Ex. A.17. The result is that Seethamma became the absolute owner in respect of the suit schedule properties.

The plaintiff pleaded that Seethamma executed a will, dated 04.04.1926 marked as Ex. A.2 in the first suit, bequeathing the suit schedule properties comprising of a house and agricultural land in its favour, directing the following arrangement.

1) A trust shall be created for administering the properties.

2) A function shall be celebrated in the name of the Author of the Trust on one Friday in every year in Sri Kanyakaparameswari Temple, New Street, Tirupati.

3) Udhayam to be performed on the first day of (Navarathri celebrations in the said temple, in the name of the Author of the Trust Smt. Panguru Seethamma.

4) ''Udhayam'' to be performed on one day during ''Sriramanavami'' celebrations in the said temple.

5) The expenditure for the repair and up keep of the house building in New Street, Triupati shall be met.

6) Scholarships shall be granted in the name of the Author of the Trust to two boys of Arya Vysya Community studying in Hindu High School of Tirupati on recommendation from the Head Master of the High School.

The original of the will is not filed in any of the two suits. If it has been acted upon, over the past several decades, the disposition made under the will hardly becomes doubtful.

The principal opposition to the arrangement pleaded under the will or for that matter, the claim made by the plaintiff Trust, came from Veera Swami both, as resistances to the first suit and independent claim in the second suit. It was always open to him to challenge the very validity of the will or to require the Trust and the trustees not only to prove the will but also to explain the suspicious circumstances.

One important turning point in the entire proceedings and the dispute, occurred with filing of O.S. No. 73 of 1979 by Veera Swami in the Court of District Judge, Chittoor. The plaint therein is filed as Ex. A.5 in the first suit and as Ex. B.45 in the second suit. He was the first plaintiff therein and two others joined him as plaintiffs. As many as 12 defendants were impleaded including the Trust, the District Collector and number of trustees. The prayer in the suit was for a decree directing the defendants therein to render accounts in relation to the management of the Trust, to declare that plaint item No. 1 is to be exclusively used for lodging Arya Vysya Community pilgrims at the rents specified in the Trust and to restrain the defendants from using the properties in any other manner. The suit schedule comprised of the premises bearing Door No. 291 of Tirupati and an extent of about Ac. 78.00 of land in Survey No. 302 of Kodrajupatteda Village, Tirupati, which is almost, the subject matter of these appeals. The effort of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 73 of 1979 i.e. Veera Swamy and two others was to protect the property of the Trust. The manner, in which the properties accrued to the Trust, has been graphically described by Veera Swamy, in the plaint, as under:

Smt. Panguluru Seethamma who is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties created a life interest in favour of her husband and after his demise the properties to vest in the trust created under the Registered will dated 4.4.1926. Smt. Panguluru Seethamma died in or about 1930 and her husband died in or about 4 years later.

The 1st item of plaint schedule properties is a building in Tirupati and the 2nd item is a landed property at Kodrajupatteda near Tirupati. Under the registered will referred above, Smkt. Panguluru Seethamma directed item 1 of the property to be exclusively used for lodging the Arya Vysya Pilgrims alone free of rent under the banner of "Punguluru Kupparama Swamy Chetty barya ayina Panguluru Seethammagari Arya Vysya Dharma Satram". The incomes from item NO. 2 of plaint schedule which is a vast extent of landed properties is specifically directed to be used for the maintenance of the aforesaid choultry and for the maintenance of this aforesaid choultry and for performance of the Utsavam in Sri Kanyakaparameswari Temple at Tirupati under the Registered will Smt. Panguluru Seethamma appointed the trustee of Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanams to be the trustee of the plaint schedule properties to carry out the subject of the trust she created. After the demise of the husband of Panguluru Seethamma, the properties were being managed by the Trustees of Sri Kanyakaparameswari Devasthanam as directed by her under the will.

The plaintiffs submits that the defendants are the present trustees of the trust in question of late they are not using item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property the purposes for which it was created, i.e., to be exclusively used for lodging the Arya Vysya pilgrims as free of rent on the other hand the building is being let out for rent for the purpose of celebrating the marriages or functions like obsequies and also such functions and to celebrate physical maturity of Girls by collecting huge amounts by way of rent. This is to state the least, 1 is against the intention and managers of the testatrix who created the trust Further, the main building of the choultry (1st item) is being leased out for rent for political and religious meetings and conference of all creeds of Hindus. All the above deeds are against the objects of the trust. The vast lands i.e., item No. 2 which are endowed for the purpose of carrying out the trust, appears to have been leased apparently to a creation person at a very rates. The lease was brought about by collusion between the defendants and the lessee. The alleged lease did not have the sanction of either departmental authority of the government or the members of vysya community at large.

The income from the properties of the trust and the legitimate expenditure incurred there after was not maintained. The members of the vysya community were not invited to peruse the accounts at any time nor was it kept open for scrutiny by the members of the community at any point of time during these 10 years.

the choultry building is in utter disrepair since the time, the death of Sri Panguluru Kupparamaswamy chetty not even a pie was spent for its repair or painting or white washing. Instead of maintaining the building in good repairs the defendants have closed the ventilation to facilitate the lease for marriage and thereby damaged the utility and value of the building. The defendants thereby committed waste.

the defendants wiped out the individuality and identity of the trust and the choultry by making two openings into the Sri Kanyakaparameswari Devasthanams temple by demolishing the wall of the choultry. The defendants have done this with the intent of destroying the identity of the choultry and make it look that the choultry is part of the said Devasthanam.

the specific direction of the author Smt. Panguluru Seethamma was to inscribe the name of "Sathram" as detailed in the testament on a stone and then fix it up to wall outside the building, so that it could be visible from the street. Instead of carrying out the object, the defendants put up a small wooden board with a wrong name painted on it, which is wholly against the intention and directions of the testatrix.

The plaintiffs submit that the pious whishes of the author of the trust is not being implemented; the property set apart for the specified purposes are not being the properly administered to the benefits of the estate or that the objects of Smt. Panguluru Seethamma are not at all being implemented in any way whatsoever.

It is equally important to note that a document in viz., the registration copy of the will, dated 04.04.1926 executed by Panguluri Seethamma was filed in that suit. The suit was later on transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and re-numbered as O.S. No. 111 of 1983. On 10.07.1987, it was dismissed for non-prosecution. Copy of the judgment in that suit is filed as Ex. B.47 in the second suit.

It is almost by repeating the contents of the plaint in O.S. No. 73 of 1979, that the Trust filed the present first suit. The difference is that, Veera Swamy was shown as first defendant and it was complained that he is trying to grab the property of the Trust, so much so he has executed sale deeds in respect of the part of the schedule properties. Veera Swamy filed written statement in this suit. It is beneficial to extract the portion of the written statement in relation to the plea as to creation of Trust.

The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the allegations in para 3 of the plaint. There is no Trust, styled as "Smt. Panguluri Seethammagari Arya Vysya Dharma Sathram" and even if there were to be one such, it is neither charitable nor religious.

No Trust was ever created by one "Smt. Panguluru Seethamma". The plaintiff is put to strict proof of execution of any registered will dt. 4-4-1926 by Smt. P. Seethamma. Panguluru Seethamma is not the author of any Trust nor she had absolute ownership of any building in New Street and the plaint schedule lands. The reg. Will dt. 4-4-1926 is void and Smt. P. Seethamma, wife of Sri Kupparama swamy Chetty would not have executed any will. It is submitted that Sri Kuppurama Swamy chetty had two wives both named Smt. Seethamma and it is for the plaintiff to prove, if there were to be any valid will, which Smt. Seethamma could have executed the will dt. 4-4-1926. the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the author of the alleged Trust, declaring and creating a Trust and its terms in a Will.

The allegations in para 4 of the plaintiff are not true and hereby denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of Smt. Seethamma, directing her husband to use the building in New Street, Triupati for his residence and enjoyed the income from the plaint schedule lands during his life, without any power of alienation. Smt. Seethamma was not the owner of the plaint schedule property or the building in New Street which belongs to the Panguluru family right from the year 1872 and even prior to that; and this defendant being sole legal heir of Smt. Seethamma''s husband as found in the Revenue records. Sri P. Kuppurama Swamy chetty had absolute rights to deal with the property as undivided co-owner of the plaint schedule property as per the registered deed dt. 16-4-1872 and registered partition deed dt. 31-12-1907 between the members of co-parcenary.

It is submitted that the plaint schedule property belongs to Panguluru family now being represented by this defendant alone.

The allegations in para 5 of the plaint are invented by the plaintiff for filing the present vexatious and frivolous suit to have wrongful gain. The allegations in para 5 are denied. After the death of P. Kuppurama Swamy chetty, the house property in New Street, Tirupati continue to be in the hands of his heirs only, including this defendant and was never used for any charitable purpose like sheltering pilgrims.

All the allegations in para 6 of the plaint are hereby denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the execution of the registered will dt. 4-4-1926 by anyone, more so by Smt. Seethamma. At no point of time the income from the paint schedule lands after the death of Sri Kuppurama Swamy Chettry was made use of for the purposes mentioned in the para 6, of the plaint and also in the alleged will, either by the plaintiff or by the persons representing Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Temple, New Street, Tirupati, or by any one representing the so called Panguluru Seethammagari Arya Vysya Dharma Sathram.

One rarely comes across such an instance wherein a person takes advantage of the fact that tongue does not have cartilage or bone. Veera Swami, who posed as protector of the Trust and its property, has turned out to be its staunch opponent and started grabbing that very property. It is important to note that by the time the first suit was filed by the Trust, showing Veera Swami as first defendant, O.S. No. 73 of 1979 which was since renumbered as O.S. No. 111 of 1983 was very much pending and was dismissed for non-prosecution only on 10.07.1987.

Apart from lack of scruples on the part of Veera Swami, in his approach towards a charitable institution created by a pious lady that too from his ancestral family, an important principle of law gets attracted. An admission on the part of a witness or a party would certainly bind him to the subject mater of such admission. For the most part of it, the effort in suits or other proceedings would be to confront the witnesses with their depositions in other proceedings. There may be some scope to wriggle out such witness from the eventuality of admission, by offering an explanation or citing the circumstances under which, the earlier statement was made. Where however, admission is in the form of writing as distinguished from a statement extracted in cross-examination, the witness or party would hardly have any scope to explain. The document speaks for itself.

Among the admissions in the written form, those in the pleadings assume further importance. The reason is that a pleading is delivered by a party to the Court, after much of deliberation and thinking process. He just cannot disown it. It can safely be said that an admission or statement made by a party in a pleading before the Court can be ascribed a superlative status. An individual cannot be permitted to keep on changing his stands reflected in the pleadings to suit his convenience. It is obvious that if the first version that was presented by him deserves to be accepted, any contrary view expressed later on must be rejected outright.

In the instant case, Veera Swamy is the first person, who presented the relevant facts pertaining to the creation of Trust, before a Court of law. He has also filed the registration extract of the will, executed by Seethamma. For all practical purposes, he has discharged the entire burden, which squarely rested upon the Trust to prove the will. Therefore, the result of the discussion of the preceding paragraphs is that (a) Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties comprised of two items; a house and agricultural land (b) he settled the property upon his wife Seethamma and (c) Seethamma executed a will deed bequeathing the properties in favour of the Trust. Point Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

Now remains the last point viz., Whether Panguluri Veera Swami, the original plaintiff in the second suit proved his claim vis-�-vis the suit schedule properties and whether the inam patta and other related documents marked as Ex. A.6 dated 29.12.1960 and other related documents marked as Exs. A.3, A.4 and A.5 in the second suit can be taken as proved?

Veera Swamy pleaded that Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty and his wife died issueless and intestate and thereby, the property devolved upon his father Subrahmanyam Chetty, the son of brother of Kuppu Ramaswami Chetty. It was also his case that Subrahmanyam Chetty was granted Inam patta in respect of the land in two survey numbers. No such claim was however made in respect of the house property. The inam patta is filed as Ex. A.6 in the second suit. The other documents such as the notice issued by the Deputy Tahsildar and Form-V notice were filed in the form of certified copies and have been marked as Exs. A.3 to A.5.

In case, the proceedings under the Act are initiated in respect of the land and a certificate was issued in favour of Veera Swamy or his father, adequate importance needs to be attached to them. However a close scrutiny thereof is needed, in view of the inconsistent stand taken by Veera Swamy from time to time. The somersault made by him vis-�-vis the suit schedule property has already been indicated in the preceding paragraphs.

Basically, if there exists patta granted by an authority under the Act, it is only through the proceedings initiated under that enactment, that the validity thereof can be decided. In view of the matter, we make it abundantly clear that we are not at all pronouncing upon the validity of Ex. A.6 and other related proceedings.

What becomes relevant and essential in the present context, is the nature of rights that have been exercised by the parties vis-�-vis the land over the period. Veera Swamy was one of the earliest persons to explain to the Court as to how the property held by Kuppu Rama Swamy and thereafter his wife Seethamma has accrued to the Trust. The record discloses that when A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act came into force, the Trust filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal in respect of the land endowed to it by Seethamma. The primary authority passed an order holding that the Trust holds certain extents of land in excess of ceiling limits. Thereupon, L.R.A.C. No. 1779 of 1966 was filed. The appellate authority passed an order holding that the Trust does not hold any land in excess of ceiling limits. That order is filed as Ex. A.4 in the first suit.

In case, Veera Swamy or his father acquired rights of ownership in relation to that land in the year 1960, as pleaded, they were supposed to file declarations before the Land Reforms Tribunal in respect of the same. No such development has taken place. An inference in this behalf, can easily be drawn. If patta was issued in the year 1960, it is just un-understandable as to how it was not taken note of, when Veera Swamy filed O.S. No. 73 of 1979. The first proceedings in which that was pressed into service, is O.S. No. 102 of 1992. It means that Ex. A6 did not see the light of the day for a period of 32 years.

A close perusal of Ex. A.6 discloses that it is in the form of a large sized bus ticket, and is a smudged paper, with all attributes of manipulation. Exs. A.2 and A.5 are certified copies obtained few weeks prior to the filing of the second suit.

It is important to note that in the second suit, Veera Swamy was the sole plaintiff and in the first suit, he was the first defendant. In none of them, he has entered the witness box. Not only from the point of view of principles of evidence, but also the manner, and the point of time, at which Ex. A.6 has surfaced, his evidence would have been of utmost importance. Failure to examine anyone connected therewith is another lapse. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that no importance can be attached to those documents in the present set of proceedings. The point is answered accordingly.

The trial Court has examined the matter in the correct perspective and arrived at correct and proper conclusions. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed in the two suits, that are under appeal.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.