whether the respondent (plaintiff) was able to prove his subsisting title over the suit land on the date of filing of the suit and, if so, how, or in the alternative, whether the appellants (builder, firm and its partners) were able to prove the subsisting title of the original holders (three PATIL) over the suit land, if so, how.= The original holders (three PATIL) though filed the civil suits to get these issues adjudicated against the affected persons but failed in their attempt to get these issues adjudicated. In other words, by the time the original holders (three PATIL) approached the 31 Civil Court, their all rights in the suit land itself got extinguished on account of efflux of time (31 years) as has been held supra. In our view, therefore, the High Court was right in its reasoning and the conclusion in holding that the original holders (three PATIL) having lost all their rights, title and interest in the suit land on the expiry of 12 years from the date of re-grant in their favour (assuming the re-grant to be valid) in 1985 and secondly, they again lost their ownership rights due to dismissal of their two suits (O.S. Nos. 364 and 365 of 2004) on 23.11.2004, neither the original holders (three PATIL) and nor the appellants, who claimed through original holders, had any right to claim any interest in the suit land.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPERAL Nos. 4757-4760 OF 2018

[Arising out of SLP (C) No.32252-32255 of 2016]

M/s Eureka Builders & Ors. .. Appellant(s)

Versus

Gulabchand s/o Veljee Dand Since

Deceased by L.Rs. & Ors.Etc.Etc. .. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals arise from the common final

judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the

High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad

in R.F.A. Nos.100017 of 2015, 100018 of 2015,

100016 of 2015 and 100099 of 2015, whereby the

Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the

appeals by allowing the plaintiff’s appeal and

1

accordingly modified the finding of the Trial Court as

regards the status and the ownership rights of the

plaintiff in the suit land and held that the plaintiff is

the owner of the suit land and is, therefore, entitled

to claim his 1/5th share in it along with defendants

Nos.1 to 4, who are legal representatives of late Shah

Veljee Kanjee.

3) In order to appreciate the issues involved in

these appeals, it is necessary to set out the

background facts, which led to filing of the suit by

the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.1 and 2

and now represented by respondent Nos. 1 and 2

against the appellants and remaining respondents

No.3 to 34 herein out of which these appeals arise.

4) The case has a history of litigation as it would

be clear from the narration of the facts stated

hereinbelow. The facts mentioned hereinbelow are

taken from SLP paper books and its list of dates.

2

5) The appellants herein are defendant Nos. 18 to

25 (who are builder, firm and its partners) whereas

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the legal representatives

of original plaintiff and respondent Nos. 3 to 34 are

proforma defendants in a civil suit (O.S. No.37/2010)

out of which these appeals arise. The contest in these

appeals is essentially among the appellants and

respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

6) The dispute relates to a land bearing CTS Nos.

361 and 366 of CTS Ward No.1 (originally bearing RS

Nos. 20/1/& 20/2 admeasuring 3 Acres 20 Guntas

and 1 Acre 25 Guntas respectively) situated at

Kusugal Road, Keshwapur, Hubli described in detail

in the schedule to the plaint (hereinafter referred to

as “the suit land”).

7) The suit land was a “watan” property under the

Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act (hereinafter

referred to as “the MHO Act”) and on its repeal in

3

1961, was governed by the Karnataka Village

Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the

KVA Act”).

8) The suit land originally belonged to three

persons namely, Marigouda Patil, Basangouda Patil

and Adveppagouda Patil (hereinafter referred to as

“three PATIL”).

9) On 23.10.1915, three PATIL leased out land

bearing CTS No. 366 (3 acres 20 guntas) to one

Chaturbhuj Ratansi for a period of 50 years whereas

the land bearing CTS No. 361 (1 acre 25 guntas) was

permanently leased out to one Kanjee Ghelabhai Shet

alias Gujjar on 09.03.1920.

10) In 1942, land bearing CTS No.361 was sold in

Court Auction proceedings and one person by name –

Shah Veljee Kanjee purchased the said land being

the highest bidder.

4

11) On 14.05.1943, Shah Veljee Kanjee purchased

another parcel of land bearing CTS No.366 by direct

sale/purchase. Shah Veljee Kanjee died on

02.12.1957 leaving behind his widow-Gunwantibai,

two major daughters and four minor sons. By

inheritance, the legal representatives stepped into his

shoes and became the joint owners of the suit land.

12) On 19.12.1957, the widow and 2 major

daughters of late Shah Veljee Kanjee sold the suit

land to one Gadag Co-operative Cotton Sales Society

Ltd.-defendant No. 17 (hereinafter referred to as the

“Society”).

13) The son of late Shah Veljee Kanjee, who is

plaintiff (since dead) and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the

present suit out of which these appeals arise felt

aggrieved by the sale dated 19.12.1957 made by their

mother and two sisters in favour of the Society and

accordingly filed civil suit being O.S. No.9/1969

5

praying therein for a declaration that the sale made

by their mother and two sisters is bad in law and

void to the extent of plaintiff’s share (5/8th) in the suit

land. The mother, two sisters and the Society

contested the suit as defendants.

14) This suit was, however, decreed on 26.08.1977

by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in plaintiff’s

favour. It was held that the sale made by the mother

and two sisters of the plaintiff in favour of the Society

is illegal and thus is not binding on the plaintiff to

the extent of his 5/8th share in the suit land.

15) This decree was challenged by the purchaser

(Society) in the High Court and later in this Court but

was not successful. In other words, the Society lost

the legal battle throughout up to this Court and

resultantly, the decree dated 26.08.1977 passed by

the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in plaintiff’s

favour became final.

6

16) In execution of this decree, the plaintiff and

defendant Nos.1-4, who are the legal representatives

of late Shah Veljee Kanjee, were accordingly placed in

joint possession of their shares in the suit land.

17) As mentioned above, the appellants herein are

the builder, firm and its partners. They claimed to

have entered into an agreement with the original

owners (three PATIL) on 23.03.2001 for purchase of

the suit land on certain terms and conditions.

18) In the year 2004, the original owners (three

PATIL) claiming their ownership rights over the suit

land filed two civil suits being O.S. Nos.364 & 365 of

2004 against the legal representatives of Shah Veljee

Kanjee and the Society. The Civil Court dismissed

both these civil suits as barred by time vide judgment

dated 29.01.2007. The two dismissals attained

finality because the three PATIL did not pursue the

matter further in appeals to the higher Courts.

7

19) During interregnum period, there were several

rounds of litigation in civil, revenue and rent courts

among the parties and their representatives.

Similarly some subsequent developments in relation

to the suit land conferring some rights by the State

on the parties also took place. However, at this stage,

it is not necessary to give details of this litigation and

its development. The same will be referred to at a

later stage while dealing with these submissions.

20) It is basically with the aforementioned

background facts, one son of Shah Veljee Kanjee

(respondent No.1 herein (since dead) and represented

by his legal representatives son/daughter as

respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed civil suit

(O.S.No.37/2010) on 23.02.2010 in the Court of

Principal Civil Judge, Sr. Division at Hubli out of

which these appeals arise against 27 defendants

which included the members of Shah Veljee Kanjee

8

family, their legal heirs, legal representatives of

original holders (three PATIL) and two intending

purchasers/buyers of the suit land, namely, Society

and the other, M/s Eureka builders – a firm and their

partners (appellants herein).

21) The suit was filed for partition and separate

possession of plaintiff’s 1/5th share in the suit land

and also for grant of permanent injunction

restraining the two intending buyers/purchasers of

the suit land from interfering in plaintiff’s possession

over the suit land.

22) In substance, the plaintiff (respondent Nos.1

and 2 herein) had claimed the aforementioned reliefs

on the basis of his title over the suit land which,

according to him, was already adjudicated and

recognized in his favour by the Civil Court vide

judgment dated 26.08.1977 passed in O.S.

No.9/1969 and it remains upheld up to this Court.

9

23) So far as other family members of Shah Veljee

Kanjee (defendant Nos. 1 (a) to (c), 2 and 4) are

concerned, they filed their counter claim and

admitted the claim set up by the plaintiff in the suit.

24) The suit was mainly contested by appellant No.1

herein i.e. the Builder (defendant No. 18) on several

grounds such as, firstly, the suit is not maintainable

because proper reliefs were not claimed by the

plaintiff; Second, the suit property is not properly

valued; Third, the plaint is insufficiently stamped;

Fourth, the suit is barred by limitation.

25) So far as the merits of the claim is concerned,

appellant No.1 (defendant No.18) denied the

plaintiff’s title over the suit land and averred inter

alia that the original holders of the suit land (three

PATIL) with whom they entered into an agreement to

purchase the suit land were having subsisting right,

title and interest in the suit land by virtue of two

10

re-grant orders (31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973) made

by the State in their favour under the KVA Act of

1961 on the application of the original holders (three

PATIL) and, therefore, the original holders (three

PATIL) were competent to enter into an agreement to

transfer the suit land in their favour on 23.03.2001.

26) It was also averred that whatever ownership

rights in the suit land which the plaintiff and

defendant Nos.1 to 4 were possessing in their favour

stood extinguished on account of the two re-grant

orders dated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 made by

the State in favour of the original holders (three

PATIL) and, therefore, in the light of these

subsequent events which came into existence, no

decree can now be passed in favour of plaintiff and

defendant Nos.1 to 4 in relation to the suit land for

any relief on the strength of their title.

11

27) Issues were framed and parties adduced their

evidence. By judgment/decree dated 07.11.2014, the

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli decreed the

plaintiff’s suit in part and passed the preliminary

decree of partition and separate possession in

relation to the suit land in plaintiff’s favour as prayed

in the suit.

28) The Additional Senior Civil Judge answered

almost all the issues in plaintiff’s favour and held

that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the

leasehold right in respect of the suit scheduled

property and so also defendant Nos. 1 (a) to (c), 2 and

4 are entitled to claim their 1/5th share each in

leasehold rights in respect of the suit land along with

the plaintiff.

29) The plaintiff, the legal representatives of

defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and defendant No. 17-

Society felt aggrieved of certain findings about the

12

ownership status of the plaintiff in the suit land and

accordingly filed four separate first appeals in the

High Court at Bangalore.

30) So far as the present appellants are concerned,

they did not prefer any appeal as they seemed to be

satisfied with the judgment of the Trial Court.

31) By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench

disposed of all the four appeals. The High Court

allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and

accordingly modified the finding of the Trial Court as

regards the status and the ownership rights of the

plaintiff in the suit land and held that the plaintiff is

the owner of the suit land and is, therefore, entitled

to claim his 1/5th share in the suit land along with

defendants, who are legal representatives of late

Shah Veljee Kanjee like the plaintiff.

32) It is against this judgment of the High Court,

the appellants herein (defendant Nos. 18 to 25 – who

13

are builder, firm and its partners) have felt aggrieved

and filed the present appeals by way of special leave

petitions in this Court.

33) Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior

counsel for the appellants and Mr. Basava Prabhu S.

Patil, learned senior counsel, Mr. G.V.

Chandrashekhar, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Mr.

Raghavendra S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the

respective respondents.

34) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in these appeals. In our view, the

reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High

Court cannot be faulted with. We are, therefore,

inclined to uphold the reasoning and the conclusion

arrived at by the High Court by assigning our

reasoning infra.

14

35) At the outset, we observe that so far as the

right, title and interest of the appellants in the suit

land is concerned, the appellants neither claim and

nor do they have a right to claim any right, title and

interest in the suit land in their own rights. In other

words, the status of the appellants in this litigation

are that of the intending purchasers of the suit land

from the original holders of the suit land (three

PATIL).

36) In our view, if the original holders (three PATIL)

are able to prove their subsisting right, title and

interest over the suit land against the plaintiff, the

appellants would be able to get the relief in the suit

because they are claiming through original holders

(three PATIL). But if the original holders (three PATIL)

are not able to prove their subsisting right, title and

interest over the suit land against the plaintiff, then

the appellants would also loose the case.

15

37) As mentioned above, the appellant alone was

contesting the suit as defendant No.18. It is not in

dispute that original holders (three PATIL) did not

contest the suit. It is also not in dispute that the

appellant was satisfied with the judgment/decree

passed by the Trial Court, therefore, they did not file

any appeal in the High Court.

38) It is with these background facts of the case, we

have to examine the question arising in these appeals

as to whether the respondent (plaintiff) was able to

prove his subsisting title over the suit land on the

date of filing of the suit and, if so, how, or in the

alternative, whether the appellants (builder, firm and

its partners) were able to prove the subsisting title of

the original holders (three PATIL) over the suit land, if

so, how.

39) In our considered opinion, the appellants have

failed to substantiate the right, title and interest of

16

the original holders (three PATIL) in the suit land

through whom they claim to derive interest in the

suit land, whereas the respondent (plaintiff) has been

able to prove his subsisting right, title and interest in

the suit land on the date of filing of the suit, out of

which these appeals arise. The appellants, therefore,

have no locus to claim any interest in the suit land.

40) It is a settled principle of law that a person can

only transfer to other person a right, title or interest

in any tangible property which he is possessed of to

transfer it for consideration or otherwise.

41) In other words, whatever interest a person is

possessed of in any tangible property, he can transfer

only that interest to the other person and no other

interest, which he himself does not possess in the

tangible property.

42) So, once it is proved that on the date of transfer

of any tangible property, the seller of the property did

17

not have any subsisting right, title or interest over it,

then a buyer of such property would not get any

right, title and interest in the property purchased by

him for consideration or otherwise. Such transfer

would be an illegal and void transfer.

43) In such eventuality and subject to any terms

and conditions if agreed between the parties, a buyer

will have a right to claim refund of sale consideration

from his seller, which he paid for purchase of the

property under the law of contract. The reason is

that the contract to purchase has failed and,

therefore, the parties have to be restored back to

their original positions, which existed at the time of

execution of the contract.

44) This principle of law may apply inter se the

original holders (three PATIL) of the land and the

intending buyers of the suit land with which we are

not concerned in this case because the present

18

litigation does not arise between these parties and

nor we are deciding the inter se rights of these parties

in these appeals.

45) This principle we have mentioned only to clarify

the inter se rights of the parties against each other in

relation to the suit land and especially the right of

the appellants against the original holders(three

PATIL) and not beyond it.

46) In our considered opinion, the reasons as to

why the appellants failed to prove the subsisting

right, title and interest of the original holders

(intending sellers-three PATIL) in the suit land are

more than one as are set out by us hereinbelow.

47) First, the original holders (three PATIL) had filed

two suits (O.S. Nos. 364 and 365 of 2004) in relation

to the suit land asserting therein their ownership

rights over the suit land against the present plaintiff

and other members of Shah Veljee Kanjee but both

19

the suits were dismissed by the Civil Court on

23.11.2004.

48) These dismissal attained finality regardless of

the fact as to on what grounds they suffered

dismissal. These dismissals were binding on the

original holder (three PATIL). A fortiori, these

dismissals are binding on the appellants too because

the appellants were claiming through the original

holders (three PATIL).

49) It is for this reason, we are of the view that the

original owners did not have any subsisting right,

title and interest in the suit land, which they could

have or/and were capable to transfer to the

appellants whether for consideration or otherwise on

the date when they entered into an agreement of sale

of the suit land to the appellants on 23.03.2001.

50) Second, it cannot be disputed that original

holders (three PATIL) had parted with the suit land

20

long back by legal mode of transfer, one through

Court Auction proceedings in 1942 and the other by

direct sale/purchase on 14.05.1943 in favour of

Shah Veljee Kanjee.

51) Since then, the original holders (three PATIL)

did not have any subsisting right, title and interest in

the suit land because whatever rights, title and

interest which they had in the suit land, the same

were transferred to Shah Veljee Kanjee through Court

Auction proceedings in 1942 and by direct

sale/purchase on 14.05.1943. These rights were then

devolved on his legal representatives by inheritance

consequent upon the death of Shah Veljee Kanjee.

52) It also cannot be disputed, as taken note of

above, that the Civil Court had already recognized

the rights, title and interest of the legal

representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee in the suit land

in O.S. No.9/1969 filed by them against the

21

purchaser-Society. This suit was decreed in favour of

legal representative of Shah Veljee Kanjee on

26.08.1977 and remained upheld up to this Court.

53) It is due to these reasons also, all the rights,

title and interest of original holders (three PATIL) in

the suit land stood extinguished.

54) Now coming to the main argument of Mr.

Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the

appellants, which he pressed in service with

vehemence.

55) Learned senior counsel urged that the original

holders of the suit land (three PATIL) having parted

with the suit land in 1942 and 14.05.1943, again got

back the suit land by way of re-grant in their favour

by order dated 31.03.1973 in respect of land (CTS

No. 361) passed by the State under KVA Act of 1961

and by other re-grant order dated 01.04.1973 passed

by the State in respect of land (CTS No. 366).

22

56) It was, therefore, his submission that in this

way, the title in the suit land stood reverted to the

original holders (three PATIL) from the dates of these

two orders.

57) On this basis, the contention of the learned

counsel for the appellants was that whatever rights,

title and interest in the suit land which the

respondent (plaintiff) might have got in 1942 and on

14.05.1943 while acquiring the suit land, the same

stood extinguished on account of re-grant made by

the State in favour of original holder (three PATIL) in

1973 by the two orders referred above.

58) We find no merit in this submission for more

than one reason. Assuming for the sake of argument

that as a result of the re-grant orders made by the

State in favour of the original holders (three PATIL),

the rights, title and interest in the suit land again

reverted to them in 1973 but they failed to exercise

23

their right of ownership over the suit land for a long

time, hence their right of ownership stood

extinguished.

59) It was only after 31 years from the re-grant

order, the original holders woke up from slumber and

filed two suits (O.S. Nos.364 and 365/2004) against

the plaintiff and other members of Shah Veljee

Kanjee in the Civil Court. It is not in dispute that the

two civil suits also suffered dismissal from the Civil

Court on 23.11.2004 and attained finality.

60) In our considered opinion, whatever so-called

rights, title and interest which the original holders

derived from the orders of re-grant in 1973 in the suit

property in their favour, the same stood extinguished

by efflux of time.

61) The reason was that in order to keep such new

rights intact and enforceable, the original holders

(three PATIL) were under a legal obligation to have

24

filed a suit for claiming a declaration and possession

of the suit land and this ought to have been done by

them within 12 years from the date of re-grant, i.e.,

1973.

62) They, however, failed to do so within 12 years

and when they actually tried to exercise their rights

by filing the suit in 2004 (after 31 years from 1973),

by then it was too late to exercise such rights in law.

By that time, their rights in the suit land stood

extinguished.

63) Section 27 of the Limitation Act deals with

extinguishment of right to property. It says that at

the determination of the period prescribed in the Act

for any person to institute a suit for possession of

any property, his right to such property shall be

extinguished. Articles 64 and 65 of the Schedule

provide 12 years period for filing a suit to claim

possession of any immovable property. The period of

25

12 years prescribed in these two articles is required

to be counted from “the date of dispossession”

(Article 64) and “when the possession of the

defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff” (Article

65).

64) As held supra, the original holders (three PATIL)

failed to file the civil suit against the plaintiff claiming

possession of the suit land on the strength of their

new title namely, re-grant in relation to the suit land,

within 12 years from the date of re-grant and,

therefore, by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation

Act, their all rights, title and interest in the suit land

got extinguished.

65) In view of these reasons, we are of the

considered view that neither the original holders

(three PATIL) and nor the appellants could take any

benefit of the orders of re-grant dated 31.03.1973

and 01.04.1973 made by the State so as to divest the

26

legal representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee (plaintiffs)

from their rights, title and interest in the suit land

which they had legally acquired through Court

Auction and direct purchase in 1942/43.

66) This issue can be examined from yet another

legal angle on the admitted facts situation arising in

the case.

67) It is not in dispute that Shah Veljee kanjee, in

the first instance, acquired legal and valid title in the

suit land through Court Auction proceedings in the

year 1942 and second, by direct purchase of the part

of the suit land on 14.05.1943 from the original

holders (three PATIL).

68) In our view, the plaintiff in alternative can be

held to have acquired title against the original

holders(three PATIL) by operation of law. The reason

is not far to seek.

27

69) Admittedly, the plaintiff continued to remain in

lawful possession of the suit land since 1942/1943,

first through Shah Veljee Kanjee and after his death

through his legal representatives. It is not in dispute

that the original holders (three PATIL) were aware of

the ownership rights of Shah Veljee Kanjee over the

suit land since 1942/1943 as Shah Veljee Kanjee got

the suit land by State Auction proceedings and also

by direct sale/purcahse.

70) In this way, it was proved that the possession of

Shah Veljee Kanjee over the suit land was throughout

long, continuous, uninterrupted, open and peaceful

with assertion of ownership from 1942 till 2004 to

the knowledge of the whole world.

71) The aforesaid undisputed facts confirm the

possessory rights, title and interest of the plaintiff in

the suit land against everyone including the original

holders (three PATIL) by operation of law.

28

72) Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel

then referred the provisions of MHO Act and KVA Act

and pointed out the nature of grant and the re-grant

of the suit land made in favour of the original holders

by the State and how it devolved on the holders etc.

73) In our view, this submission need not be dealt

with in detail because it has no relevance in the light

of our findings recorded above against the appellants.

74) In other words, once the rights of the original

holders in the suit land stood extinguished, this

submission does not survive for consideration on its

merits.

75) A right in the property once extinguished by

operation of law, it cannot be revived unless the law

itself provides for its revival in a particular situation.

Such is not the case here.

29

76) There is, however, another infirmity in the case

of the appellants, which disentitle them to claim any

relief in relation to the suit land.

77) As mentioned above, the appellants, for proving

the right of ownership of the original holders (three

PATIL) in the suit land, have placed reliance on the

two orders dated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 of the

State by which the State is alleged to have made

re-grant of the suit land in favour of the original

holders (three PATIL).

78) In our view, in the absence of any adjudication

of the right of ownership of the original holders (three

PATIL) on the strength of these two orders by the

competent Court as against the other stakeholders

having an interest in the suit land and especially the

legal representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee, it is not

possible to give any benefit of these two orders in

30

favour of the original holders (three PATIL) in these

proceedings.

79) That apart, what is the effect of passing of the

two orders on the rights, title and interest of the

purchasers of the suit land because admittedly, the

suit land was sold to the purchaser (Late Shah Veljee

Kanjee) prior to passing of these two orders and

whether these orders will ipso facto divest the

purchasers of their rights, title and interest in the

suit land were required to be gone into by the

competent Court after affording an opportunity to

such affected persons, namely, legal representatives

of late Shah Veljee Kanjee.

80) The original holders (three PATIL) though filed

the civil suits to get these issues adjudicated against

the affected persons but failed in their attempt to get

these issues adjudicated. In other words, by the time

the original holders (three PATIL) approached the

31

Civil Court, their all rights in the suit land itself got

extinguished on account of efflux of time (31 years)

as has been held supra.

81) It is for these reasons also, we are of the view

that the appellants have no case.

82) In our view, therefore, the High Court was right

in its reasoning and the conclusion in holding that

the original holders (three PATIL) having lost all their

rights, title and interest in the suit land on the expiry

of 12 years from the date of re-grant in their favour

(assuming the re-grant to be valid) in 1985 and

secondly, they again lost their ownership rights due

to dismissal of their two suits (O.S. Nos. 364 and 365

of 2004) on 23.11.2004, neither the original holders

(three PATIL) and nor the appellants, who claimed

through original holders, had any right to claim any

interest in the suit land.

32

83) In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the

considered opinion that looking at the issues involved

in this case from any angle, these appeals have no

merits. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly

dismissed.

.………………………………..J

(R.K. AGRAWAL)

..………………………………J.

(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

New Delhi,

May 03, 2018

33