RAM KUMAR DAS Vs. JAGDISH CHANDRA DEO DHABAL DEB
LAWS(SC)-1951-11-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on November 26,1951

RAM KUMAR DAS Appellant
VERSUS
JAGDISH CHANDRA DEO,DHABAL DEB Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

KANHAIYA LAL VS. BIRDHI CHAND GIRDHARI LAL [LAWS(DLH)-1972-1-34] [REFERRED]
JAGAT TARAN BERRY VS. SARDAR SANT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1979-5-10] [REFERRED]
RITA KHURANA VS. KAMLA DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-1997-12-48] [REFERRED]
SAMIR MUKHERJEE VS. DAVINDER KUMAR BAJAJ [LAWS(DLH)-1998-1-74] [REFERRED]
MOHINDER PAL SINGH KHURANA VS. MODI ALAKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-375] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL CHUNIBHAI DHANJIBHAI VS. PATEL VALLABHBHAI AMBALAL [LAWS(GJH)-1974-6-8] [CASES REFERRED]
SHAH BABULAL SOMALAL VS. SHAH KANTILAL HARGOVANDAS [LAWS(GJH)-1978-7-7] [REFERRED]
VISVESVARAYA INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVT CENTRE VS. O L OF RUSTOM MILLS AND IND LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2003-7-17] [REFERRED]
BASANT LAL SAH VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD SAH [LAWS(ALL)-1963-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHAFIQ UDDIN VS. PYARE LAL [LAWS(ALL)-1975-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
SALLOMAL VS. NAINA BAI [LAWS(ALL)-1978-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
ZARIF AHMAD VS. SATISH KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-1982-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SHANKAR YADAV VS. XVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2002-5-138] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA GOPAL PANDEY VS. BANS BAHADUR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2003-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHORE SETH VS. RAM AVTAR [LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-235] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN MAINI VS. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-276] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN VS. MOHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALI [LAWS(APH)-1977-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
DEVATHA RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY VS. VALLABHANENI SUBBA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1985-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD RIHAN ANSARI VS. SARDAR JASWANT SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2009-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
TECHNICIANS STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. LILA GHOSH [LAWS(SC)-1977-9-9] [DISTINGUISHED]
CHILUKOTI SRINIVASA RAO VS. ADIDAM MOHAN RAO [LAWS(APH)-2000-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
OASIS BAR AND RESTAURANT VS. P UMABALA [LAWS(APH)-2002-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
D KYATHAPPA VS. K L SIDARAMAPPA [LAWS(APH)-2002-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA KUMAR MANJI VS. TRILOCHAN NATH [LAWS(CAL)-1955-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUMAR MAJUMDAR VS. DHIRENDRA NATH BISWAS [LAWS(CAL)-1956-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
LAL BEHARI SASMAL VS. KANAK KANTI ROY [LAWS(CAL)-1962-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD VS. BIMALENDU NATH SARKAR [LAWS(CAL)-1963-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT MOHAN DEY VS. SATADALBASINI DASI [LAWS(CAL)-1964-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
BAR DAS DEY AND CO VS. ISHWAR TARAKESHWAR SIB THAKUR JIU SHEBAIT MOHANT SRIMAT DANDISWAMI HRISHIKESH ASHRAM [LAWS(CAL)-1969-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
P G AND SAWOO P LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1974-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
BISWABANI PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SANTOSH KUMAR DUTTA [LAWS(SC)-1979-9-7] [FOLLOWED]
JUTHIKA MULICK VS. MAHENDRA YASHWANTLAL [LAWS(SC)-1994-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR MUKHERJEE VS. DAVINDER K BAJAJ [LAWS(SC)-2001-4-112] [REFERRED]
DELITE PACKAGING INDUSTRIES VS. ANAND KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2003-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA DAS NANDY VS. BIDHAN CHANDRA ROY [LAWS(CAL)-1958-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD VS. SITARAM AGARWALA [LAWS(ORI)-1957-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
AMULYA KUMAR SUR VS. DILIP KUMAR SUR [LAWS(CAL)-1975-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
TECHNICIANS STUDIO P LTD VS. LILA GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-1976-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN LTD VS. MALATHESHA ENTERPRISE [LAWS(KAR)-1980-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
DHANA BAI VS. KEWARA BAI [LAWS(MPH)-1971-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR AMAR SINGH VS. SURINDER KAUR [LAWS(MPH)-1975-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR AMAR SINGH VS. SURINDER KAUR [LAWS(MPH)-1975-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
ASWINI KUMAR ROY VS. SURUPA ROY [LAWS(CAL)-1981-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIA IYER VS. AMMU ALIAS MADHAVI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-1963-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. GOVIND DEVI BINANI [LAWS(CAL)-1983-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
GOSWAMI MALTI VAHUJI MAHARAJ VS. PURUSHOTTAM LAL PODDAR [LAWS(CAL)-1984-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
HRISHIKESH HATI VS. BIBHUTI BHUSAN MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-1986-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
SANKAR LAL NARAYAN PROSAD VS. SATYA NARAYAN BERLIA [LAWS(CAL)-1986-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
PIECO ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICALS LTD VS. TRIBENI DEVI [LAWS(CAL)-1989-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
P N VENKATESA CHETTIAR VS. ANNAMALAI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION IN LIQUIDATION [LAWS(MAD)-1984-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR DUTTA VS. TAPAN KUMAR SHAW [LAWS(CAL)-1997-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
K C ITOOP AND SONS VS. ANTONY [LAWS(KER)-1986-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
MEHTA SURAYA VS. UNITED INVESTMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2002-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS. GLAMOUR SAREE MUSEUM [LAWS(MAD)-1991-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
POKARMAL RAMPATMAL VS. GANGABHISAN LAXMINARAYAN SHOP [LAWS(BOM)-1976-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR TRANSPORT COMPANY BANGALORE VS. MUTHU GANAPATHY [LAWS(KAR)-2005-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
JIYAJI RAO COTTON MILLS LTD VS. BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION DELHI [LAWS(MPH)-2007-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
NAGJI VALLABHAJI AND CO VS. MEGHJI VIJPAR AND CO [LAWS(BOM)-1983-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT KUMAR PAUL VS. SHREE LAKSHMI JANARDAN THAKUR [LAWS(CAL)-2007-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
MEHTA SURAYA PVT LTD VS. UNITED INVESTMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2008-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. THIRUVALANGADU AGRICULTURAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED THIRUVALANGADU TANJAVUR [LAWS(MAD)-1997-7-16] [REFERRED TO 1951 S.C.J. 813 VITAL VEL PRESS V. SRI RANGANATHASWAMY TEMPLE; 1996 I L.W. 602]
S S K S BASKARAN DIED VS. N THIRUGNANASUNDARAM PILLAI [LAWS(MAD)-1998-2-178] [REFERRED TO]
HAJI ALI MOHAMMAD AND SONS PANNA VS. HOLARAM [LAWS(MPH)-1970-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMANI DEVI KABRA VS. NARENDRA KUMAR SUKHCHAND SHA [LAWS(MPH)-1978-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
TIVOLI PARK APARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR [LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
Rosi VS. Pillaiyar Mariamman Temple [LAWS(MAD)-2005-2-120] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA FOOD INDUSTRIES VS. KAMALABAI MANIKRAO WATH [LAWS(BOM)-2002-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
HARISHCHANDRA DHONDUSHETH KHUDE VS. VITHOBA RAKHUMAI DEVSTHAN PUBLIC TRUST [LAWS(BOM)-2004-1-111] [REFERRED TO]
THANAPAL VS. SAKUNTHALA [LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-251] [REFERRED TO]
G V FILMS LIMITED VS. S PRIYADARSHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-307] [REFERRED TO]
SONALI VS. C BALAJI [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-252] [REFERRED TO]
JIWAN RAM VS. TOBGYAL WANGCHUK [LAWS(SIK)-1983-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR VS. RAMESHWAR [LAWS(RAJ)-1954-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
LAL CHAND VS. RADHA BALLABH [LAWS(RAJ)-1958-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
CHAUTHMAL VS. SARDARMAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1958-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
SETH LALCHAND VS. SETH RADHA BALLABH [LAWS(RAJ)-1959-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMI NARAIN VS. KALYAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1959-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
CHIMANLAL VS. MAHARAJADHIRAJ H H SHRI SUMERSINGHJI OF KISHANGARH [LAWS(RAJ)-1960-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
SHEOGOBIND BHAKAT VS. SUJAN MAHTO [LAWS(PAT)-1959-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
BASTACOLLA COLLIERY CO LTD VS. BANDHU BELDAR [LAWS(PAT)-1960-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
PRITILATA DEVI VS. BANKE BIHARI LAL [LAWS(PAT)-1962-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAILAL VS. KANTILAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1967-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
SAMPAT VS. IDOL SHRI CHANDRA PRABHAJI BHAGWAN TEMPLE DEEG [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
JULUMDHARI RAI VS. DEBI RAI [LAWS(PAT)-1964-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
SUKANRAJ VS. NEKARCHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
ADIT PRASAD VS. CHHAGANLAL [LAWS(PAT)-1967-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. GOVIND NARAIN [LAWS(RAJ)-1970-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAYAN SARAN VS. PATNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST [LAWS(PAT)-1970-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARILAL SHARMA VS. RAM SWAROOP [LAWS(RAJ)-1974-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
MANDAR THAKAR JI VS. GURBAX SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1994-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
GULAM MOHAMMAD VS. KISHAN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1975-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJ BEHARI VS. ACHARYA HARI [LAWS(RAJ)-1975-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAWAT HARDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1981-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
WELLMAN WACOMA LTD VS. TIVOLI PARK APARTMENTS P LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2012-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM J.C. WOOLLEN MILLS VS. MAHANT SOHAN DASS CHELA MAHANT PURAN DASS [LAWS(P&H)-1999-2-127] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED KUNJU BEEVI VS. ELAYAKUNJU SHAHUL HAMEED [LAWS(KER)-1990-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA SHANKAR GUPTA VS. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-1982-11-52] [REFERRED TO]
PREMLATA ARYA VS. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2013-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED VS. RAJEEV DAGA [LAWS(CAL)-2013-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
ABDULAHED MOULVI ABDULSAMAD VS. GULAMAHMED GULAMNABI BARDOLIWALA [LAWS(GJH)-1973-4-13] [REFERRED TO.]
DIPAK KUMAR SINGH VS. PARK STREET PROPERTIES (P) LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2014-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY BANDHU, AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. OM PRAKASH [LAWS(HPH)-2006-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM BIR PRASAD GUPTA VS. VED PRAKASH GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-267] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: PRUDENTIAL CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2007-10-61] [REFERRED TO]
BABAN RANA VS. NARASHING SWAR, AFTER HIM PARBATI ALIAS SUNA BEWA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1953-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
DELUXE DENTELLES PVT LTD VS. ISHPINDER KOCHHAR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KIRAN ARYA AND ANR. VS. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2013-8-111] [REFERRED TO]
JEWAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. MANDALAL AGARWALLA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1954-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
KALI KUMAR SEN AND ANR. VS. HARIDAS ROY [LAWS(GAU)-1968-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
MT. HAMIDA KHATOON VS. SHIBANANDA BHANDARI AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1953-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION AND ORS. VS. EURO MERCHANDISE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-9-278] [REFERRED TO]
BAZAZ CONSTRUCTION AND MINING (P) LIMITED VS. ADHISH CHANDRA SINHA [LAWS(CAL)-2001-6-49] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION MUMBAI VS. EURO MERCHANDISE (INDIA) PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-205] [REFERRED TO]
JIWANDAS AGARWAL VS. NARAYANDAS DEORA [LAWS(CAL)-1972-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AGYAN SINGH VS. MURLIDHAR AGARWAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-1970-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
BHAWANI DAS AND ANOTHER VS. KAYESTHA PATHSHALA, ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1977-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY VS. BRIJ MOHAN DALMIYA [LAWS(CAL)-1989-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAMANI DASSI VS. SNEHALATA DUTT [LAWS(CAL)-1954-2-32] [REFERRED]
AMALENDU BHADRA AND ANOTHER VS. MOLOY DEB CHATTERJEE AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CAL)-1986-9-46] [REFERRED]
M/S VISHAL TRANSFORMER AND SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. VS. M/S LAL BROTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-125] [REFERRED TO]
ATMA RAM VS. GAJENDRA KUMAR JOSHI [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-182] [REFERRED TO]
ANAL CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS VS. BALLY INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN DHAWAN VS. VIVEK MITTAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD A BODY CORPORATION VS. SEVOKE PROPERTIES PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2018-11-72] [REFERRED TO]
BARGHAVI VS. B C TARAKESH [LAWS(KAR)-2019-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
BOBBY VS. RAJ KUMARI [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-171] [REFERRED TO]
SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. VS. SURINDER SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2020-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
SETHURAMAN VS. KOTTAIPATTI CHINNA PALLIVASAL [LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-386] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN KUMAR VS. AKHILESH CHANDRA CHHABRA [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
ALW ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RAJLAXMI INVETMENT AND TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2021-4-75] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal is on behalf of the defendant and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff respondent, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chaibassa, for recovery of possession of the land described in schedule to the plaint, on the allegation that the defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the same, and that the tenancy was determined by a notice to quit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the decision was affirmed, on appeal, by the District Judge, Purulia, and on Second Appeal, by a Division Bench of the High Court of Patna. The defendant has now come up to this Court on the strength of a certificate granted under Section 110, Civil P. C.
(2.)Mr. Setalvad, appearing on behalf of the defendant appellant, stated to us at the outset that he would not dispute the validity or sufficiency of the notice to quit served upon his client, if on the facts of this case he is held to be a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the premises in suit. His contention, in substance, is that the defendant was, at no point of time, a monthly tenant under the plaintiff or his predecessor. There might have been, according to the learned Counsel, two tenancies for one year each for two successive periods, but on the expiry of the second yearly lease, which happened on 7th December, 1926, the defendant ceased to be a tenant and no fresh tenancy was created by 'holding over', as is contemplated by S. 116, T. P. Act. As there was no "holding over", there could not be any question of a monthly tenancy being brought into existence under the provision of S. 116, T. P. Act, and the present suit of the plaintiff having been admittedly brought more than 12 years after the determination of the second yearly lease, is barred by limitation under Art. 139, Limitation Act. The whole controversy in this appeal thus centres round the point as to whether the defendant was in fact a monthly tenant under the plaintiff at the date when the notice to quit was served upon him. To appreciate the respective contentions that have been put forward upon this point by the learned Counsel on both sides, it will be necessary to narrate briefly the material facts in their chronological order.
(3.)The property in suit is a plot of land, measuring 4 bighas 12 cuttas, and is comprised in old Survey plot No. 573 of village Jugselai in the district of Singhbhum. The entire village forms part of the Dhalbhum estate, of which the plaintiff is admittedly the present proprietor. One Charan Bhumji was the "Prodhan" of village Jugselai from some time before 1913 and on 24-7-1913 the father of the defendant, by a registered Patta, took lease of about 31 bighas of land appertaining to Survey plot No. 573 from this Prodhan for purposes of cultivation. It is not disputed that the property in suit is covered by this Patta. At that time the proprietor of the Dhalbhum estate was Raja Satrughna and he died in 1916, leaving behind him a will by which the entire estate was bequeathed to the present plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim under the will was challenged by one Pratap Chandra Deo Dhabal who succeeded in getting his name recorded as proprietor of the zamindary in the Singhbhum Collectorate. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted a suit (being Title Suit No. 67 of 1921) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Midnapore for establishment of his title to the zamindary and the suit was decreed by the trial Judge. Against this decision, the defendant Partap Chandra Deo Dhabal took an appeal to the High Court of Calcutta and during the pendency of his appeal, the High Court appointed a Receiver who was put in possession of the entire estate. On 8-12-1924, the defendant executed a registered kabuliyat in favour of the Receiver, by which he purported to take settlement of the land in suit for a period of 10 years at a rental of Rs. 46 per annum and a selami of Rs. 250. There was a covenant in the lease, which looks like one for perpetual renewal, and it was to the effect that on the expiry of the term, if the lessor did not require the land for his own purposes and decided to re-settle it, the lessee would be entitled to fresh settlement on enhanced rent and on such terms as might be then agreed upon between the parties. It appears from the record that the selami money, amounting to Rs. 250, was paid by the defendant to the Receiver several months before the kabuliyat was executed, and the rental amounting to Rs. 46 was paid for the first time on 8-3-1925. The next payment of rent was made in the succeeding year, on 16-3-1926. Admittedly, no further payment of rent was made by the lessee either to the Receiver or to the proprietor since then, up to this period. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by Pratap Chandra Deo Dhabal some time in 1924 and this order of dismissal was affirmed by the Judicial Committee in May 1927. The Receiver was then discharged and the plaintiff got possession of the entire estate in July 1927. On 15-4-1937 the plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment (being Title Suit No.2 of 1937) against the defendant in respect of this property in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chaibassa. The claim was based substantially upon the terms of the kabuliyat executed by the defendant on 24-12-1924, and the suit was, in fact, one for ejectment of a lease on the expiration of the period provided for in the lease. It was only the renewal clause in the kabuliyat that was challenged as invalid and inoperative, not only because it was vague and indefinite but also on the ground that the Receiver acted beyond his authority in entering into a stipulation of this character.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.