//
you're reading...
legal issues

will deed= suspicious circumstances = alterations =Sections 63 and 71 of the Act which have bearing on the decision of the first question read as under: “63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:- (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.

A 1636 Indian deed for Rhode Island signed by ...

Image via Wikipedia

NON-REPORTABLE


 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7548 OF 2002

Dayanandi ... Appellant 

 Versus

Rukma D. Suvarna and others ... Respondents

 J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single 

Judge of the Karnataka High Court whereby he allowed the appeal filed by 

respondent No.1, reversed the judgment and decree passed by Ist Additional 

Civil Judge, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as, `the trial Court') and 

decreed the suit filed by her for partition and separate possession of her 

share in the suit property. 

 2

2. The suit property was owned by Singa Gujaran, father of respondent 

No.1, appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 6. About 3 months and 10 days 

before his death, Singa Gujaran executed Will dated 25.5.1987. He 

bequeathed the property specified in item No.1 of the Schedule attached to 

the Will to one of his four daughters, namely, Kalyani (respondent No.3) and 

the property specified in item No.2 jointly to the other daughters, namely, 

Dayanandi (appellant), Rukma (respondent No.1) and Deena (respondent 

No.2).

3. After one year of the demise of Singa Gujaran, respondent No.1 filed 

suit for partition and separate possession of her share in plaint Schedule `B' 

property. She pleaded that her father had executed Will dated 25.5.1987 and 

bequeathed plaint Schedule `A' property to respondent No.3 Kalyani and 

plaint Schedule `B' property to other daughters but by taking advantage of 

the acute illness of the father, the appellant and respondent No.2 

manipulated the execution of another Will depriving her of share in the 

property.

4. In the written statement jointly filed by them, appellant and 

respondent No.2 did not deny the execution of Will dated 25.5.1987 by 

Singa Gujaran but they questioned the genuineness and validity of the Will 

 3

relied upon by respondent No.1 and pleaded that after executing the Will, 

the deceased had made alterations and thereby disinherited respondent No.1. 

They further pleaded that Singa Gujaran executed another Will dated 

25.8.1987, in which respondent No.1 was not given any share because she 

did not attend funeral of the mother and even when the testator visited 

Bombay in May, 1987, she did not come to meet him. According to the 

appellant and respondent No.2, at the time of execution of the second Will 

Singa Gujaran was in a sound state of mind and he consciously denied any 

share in the property to respondent No.1. They claimed that respondent 

No.1 has filed suit for partition and possession of her alleged share in the 

suit property by taking advantage of the testator's subsequent illness and his 

inability to speak or move about.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following 

issues:

 "1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary 

 parties? (deleted)

 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that Late Singa Gujaran 

 executed a Will dated 25.8.1987 and whether it was the last 

 and effective Will of the Late Singa Gujaran?

 3. Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 prove that their father 

 Late Singa Gujaran executed the Will dated 25.8.1987 and 

 whether it is the last and effective Will of Singa Gujaran?

 4

 4. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 prove the Panchayat 

 alleged in para 9 of the written statement and whether the 

 plaintiff accepted the jewellery? (deleted)

 5. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 also prove that rents are 

 being collected by Amarnath and spending for maintenance of 

 property, payment of tax and to look after Ravindra who is 

 congenitally mentally retarded and is dumb?

 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim a share in the 

 rental income of buildings situated in plaint "B" scheduled 

 property?

 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate 

 possession of 1/3rd share in plaint `B' scheduled properties as 

 claimed?

 8. To what reliefs are the parties entitled."

6. In support of her case, respondent No.1 examined herself and 5 other 

witnesses including PW-5 Dr. J. Subba Rao and produced 11 documents 

which were marked as Exhibits P.1 to P.11. She also got produced original 

Will dated 25.5.1987 (Exhibit P.1) from the appellant. The appellant 

examined herself as DW-1 and produced the second Will which was marked 

as Exhibit D.1.

7. After analyzing the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced 

by them, the trial Court held that execution of Will dated 25.5.1987 is 

proved but observed that by virtue of the alterations made in that Will, the 

 5

deceased has consciously disinherited respondent No.1. The trial Court 

noted that the names of four persons were mentioned in Exhibit P.1 in 

respect of the second item of the Schedule but the name of respondent No.1 

Rukma was deleted and total number of the beneficiaries was also changed. 

The trial Court referred to the statement of respondent No.1 that her father 

had shown Exhibit P.1 without any correction as also the alleged admission 

made by her in response to a question put in the cross-examination and 

observed:

 "16. PW-1 in the chief-examination, appearing on page No.3 

 states that her father had shown Ex.P.1 to her and when she 

 had seen there was no insertion or correction noted in Ex.P.1, 

 but she has not stated that the correction or deletion was made 

 by defendant No.1. In the cross examination, appearing at 

 page 7, PW-1 specifically admits that the documents writer 

 before completing the document will mention the corrections 

 made in the document. She states that she did not notice the 

 corrections made in Ex.P.1. She admits that her father Singa 

 Gujaran affixed LTM on Ex.P.1. Further admission of PW-1 

 appearing in the form of question and answer on the face 

 depict that the said corrections and deletions appearing in 

 Ex.P.1 was made before the contents were read over to Singa 

 Gujaran. In this regard, I am inspired to extract the testimony 

 of PW-1 appearing in the form of question and answer made 

 not in her cross examination, which reads thus:

 Question: Is it not that the striking off and the correction at 

 the end of the document made at the time of preparation of the 

 document by the scribe?

 Answer: Striking off and the correction were written at the 

 time when the document was read over to my father.

 6

 (True and correct English Translation of Kannada Portion).

 Thus the answer given by PW-1 appearing in the cross-

 examination itself suffice to conclude that the corrections 

 made in Ex.P.1 were within the knowledge of Singa Gujaran 

 and when the scribe read over the contents of Ex.P.1, those 

 corrections were found in Ex.P1. In this regard the testimony 

 of PW-5 may be recollected, who in the chief-examination 

 itself has deposed that the contents of Ex.p1 were read over 

 by the scribe to Singa Gujaran, who admitted the same and 

 affixed his LTM. This shows that, after the name of plaintiff 

 `Rukma' was deleted and the corrections were made, so as to 

 bequeath to 3 persons instead of 4 persons, Singa Guajan by 

 understanding that the name of Rukma was deleted and the 

 `B' schedule property was to be bequeathed only to 

 defendants 1 to 3, affixed his LTM. After giving answer as 

 extracted supra, PW-1 realised and further deposed that she 

 gave such answer in confusion, but there was no such 

 confusion as a clear cut question was put to her and she gave a 

 very clean answer and the same has been recorded."

 The trial Court also discarded the testimony of PW-5 by making the 

following observations:

 "The plaintiff examined PW-5 to prove Ex.P.1 and also to 

 convince the court that the corrections made in Ex.P.1 

 deleting the name of the plaintiff as after thought by defendant 

 No.1, whereas the said correction was not found when Singa 

 Gujaran affixed his LTM, but in this regard the plaintiff failed 

 to convince that fact, because PW-5 not supported to that 

 extent. When Ex.P.1 was confronted to PW-5, he has deposed 

 that the contents of the same were read over to Singa Gujaran 

 by the scribe, who admitted the contents and then affixed his 

 LTM. This witness states that he also read over the contents 

 of Ex.P.1 and states thus:

 `After having read this, what stated in Ex.P.1 now was in 

 fact written.

 7

 Question:-1 Whether in Ex.P.1 on the first page the 

 word, `nalvarige' was struck off and the word `moovarige' 

 was written in pen at that time?

 Ans:- I do not know about it.

 Question:-2 Whether in the second page the word, 

 `Rukma' was struck off and on top of it `3' as written in pen 

 and in the next line the word, `nalvaru' was struck off and the 

 word, `moovaru' was written in pen at that time?

 Ans:- I do not know about it also.

 (True and correct English translation of Kannada portion).

 Thus, the testimony of PW-5 goes against the assertion of the 

 plaintiff, because PW-5, who is a doctor and who was treating 

 Singa Gujaran has clearly deposed that whatever the contents 

 appear now in Ex.P.1, were very much present when Singa 

 Gujaran executed it, thereby he has ruled out the possibility of 

 any corrections or alterations made after execution of it by 

 Singa Gujaran. He has not deposed that the corrections noted 

 in Ex.P.1, were not present at the time of execution by Singa 

 Gujaran, but to the questions put to him as extracted above, he 

 has shown ignorance, but his first part referred supra, 

 unequivocally depict that the contents of Ex.P.1 which are 

 now existing, including the corrections and alterations, were 

 available at the time of execution by Singa Gujaran."

 The trial Court finally held that respondent No.1 was not entitled to 

any share in the suit property and accordingly dismissed the suit. 

8. In the appeal filed by respondent No.1, the High Court framed the 

following points:

 8

 "1) Whether the alternation/deletion of the plaintiff's name 

 in the first Will Ext.P.1 was done prior to its execution 

 by the executant or not?

 2) Whether the finding of the court below that the second 

 Will Ext.D-1 is proved, is justified or not?"

9. The High Court first considered the issue whether 

corrections/alterations made in Exhibit P.1 existed when the testator 

appended his thumb impression, referred to the evidence produced by the 

parties, noticed Section 71 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 

`the Act') and observed:

 "A bare perusal of the original of Ext.P.1 discloses the first 

 alteration is found at page No.1 in the last second and third line, 

 where the name of Rukkamma has been struck off and 

 subsequently in place `to four persons' is struck off and the 

 word `to three persons' is inserted in page No.2 and in third line 

 the word Rukkamma is deleted and in the fourth line `to four 

 persons' is struck off and `to three persons' has been inserted. 

 As required under Section 71 of the Indian Succession Act, 

 1925 no signature of the testator is made in the margin or at 

 some other part of the Will or near to such alteration or at the 

 foot or end or opposite to a memorandum referring to such 

 alteration. Therefore, when such alteration has not been made 

 in the manner indicated under Section 71 such alterations will 

 not have any effect. Secondly, as to the question whether said 

 alterations were made prior to the execution of the Will or 

 subsequent to the execution of the Will there is absolutely no 

 evidence adduced by either of the parties. However, an attempt 

 is made on the part of the respondents counsel to point out the 

 evidence of PW-1 wherein she has stated that the said 

 corrections are made at the time when it was read over to her 

 father whereby meaning that after alterations were made it was 

 9

 read over to the executant and he affixed his LTM in token of 

 such alterations also. It is this admission which has been taken 

 note of by the court below to hold that the said alterations were 

 there before execution and therefore, the Will has to be 

 executed with the said alterations. It is nobody's case that PW-

 1 was present at the time of the execution of Ext.P.1 In fact, 

 realising the mistake committed by her an attempt is made 

 subsequently to explain it. But it is clear that her admission has 

 no legal basis as she was not present at the time Ex.P1 was 

 executed. If the evidence is excluded from record, there is no 

 other evidence placed on record by the defendant to 

 demonstrate that the said alteration was made prior to the 

 execution of the Will. In fact, the doctor, attesting witness PW-

 5 is unable to answer a pointed question whether such 

 alterations were there when the Will was executed and when he 

 attested the Will. In the aforesaid circumstances, no importance 

 could be given to the so called admission of the plaintiff to hold 

 that the said alterations were there before executing the 

 Will.........."

 (emphasis supplied)

10. The High Court then considered the question whether Singa Gujaran 

had voluntarily executed the second Will (Ext. D1), analysed the evidence 

produced by the parties including statements of the doctors examined by 

respondent No.1 and answered the same in negative. The High Court also 

dealt with the reasons put forward by the appellant and respondent No.2 to 

justify the alleged decision of Singa Gujaran to disinherit respondent No.1 

and observed:

 "On the face of it the said reason given for disinheriting the 

 plaintiff do not appear to be genuine. The mother of the 

 plaintiff died in the year 1985. If his father was upset 

 10

because she did not attend the funeral in 1985, in 1987 

when he was making the will he would not have given a 

share in the B-schedule property to the plaintiff under 

Ex.P.1 and that cannot be made a ground to disinherit the 

plaintiff in the second will when under the first will a specific 

share has been given to the plaintiff. In between the first will 

and second will hardly the gap is three months. The case 

advanced by the defendant is after making the first will his 

father went to Bombay to the second defendant's house 

and the plaintiff did not visit him. Absolutely no material is 

placed before court to substantiate the said case. The said 

case is highly impossible because the material on record 

disclose that on 11lh of August 1987 his father was 

admitted to Tara Clinic which fact was totally denied by the 

defendant in her reply notice. It is to demonstrate the said 

fact the plaintiff has examined three doctors as witnesses. 

Their evidence has remained unchallenged and ultimately 

the defendant also admits that the father was admitted to 

Tara Nursing Home. The evidence on record disclose that 

on 11th of August 1987 when the father was admitted in the 

hospital after examination when it was found that he was 

suffering from stomach cancer probably as it was at 

advanced stage the doctor advised the parties to take him 

back to the house as no useful purpose would be served by 

keeping him in the clinic. Therefore, after examination he 

was brought back to the house and no treatment was 

given. The evidence of his grandson PW-6 who is son of 

third defendant gives an indication of his state of health. At 

the time of attesting the testator was in the nursing home. 

He states that on 11th of August 1987 he was admitted to 

the nursing home and on 13th he was discharged. The 

doctors informed them that the deceased is at the 

advanced stage of cancer and they cannot give any 

treatment. Therefore, three persons lifted him to the car and 

brought him back to the house. When he was brought to 

the house from the hospital he was in unconscious state 

and he was not taking any food. Dr. Subbarao was visiting 

the house. After he was taken to Tara Clinic he was not in 

a position to walk. In fact, the said witness and his mother 

was staying next doors to the house where Singa Gujaran 

 11

 was staying. In the cross-examination of DW-1 she admits 

 that her relationship with her mother was cordial. Under 

 these circumstances, the materials on record disclose that 

 at the time Ext. D-1 was alleged to have been executed by 

 the executant he was suffering from stomach cancer and 

 his health was not in good state. It is 14 days after his 

 admission to the nursing home the said will has come into 

 existence. Fourteen days thereafter he has died. It cannot 

 be said that under these circumstances he was in a sound 

 state of disposing state of mind to execute Ext.D-1."

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 

We shall first consider the question whether the hand written endorsement 

made at the end of the typed Will (Exhibit P.1) was made at the instance of 

the testator before he affixed his left thumb mark and whether the High 

Court committed an error by reversing the finding recorded by the trial 

Court on this issue. 

12. Sections 63 and 71 of the Act which have bearing on the decision of 

the first question read as under:

 "63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.- Every testator, not 

 being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual 

 warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at 

 sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:-

 (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, 

 or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence 

 and by his direction.

 12

 (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of 

 the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall 

 appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the 

 writing as a Will.

 (c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each 

 of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to 

 the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in 

 the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has 

 received from the testator a personal acknowledgement 

 of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other 

 person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in 

 the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary 

 that more than one witness be present at the same time, 

 and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.

 71. Effect of obliteration, interlineation or alteration in 

 unprivileged Will. - No obliteration, interlineation or other 

 alteration made in any unprivileged Will after the execution 

 thereof shall have any effect, except so far as the words or 

 meaning of the Will have been thereby rendered illegible or 

 undiscernible, unless such alteration has been executed in like 

 manner as hereinbefore is required for the execution of the 

 Will:

 Provided that the Will, as so altered, shall be deemed to be duly 

 executed if the signature of the testator and the subscription of 

 the witnesses is made in the margin or on some other part of the 

 Will opposite or near to such alteration, or at the foot or end of 

 or opposite to a memorandum referring to such alteration, and 

 written at the end or some other part of the Will." 

13. An analysis of Section 63 shows that the testator must sign or affix his 

mark on the Will or the same shall be signed by some other person as per his 

direction and in his presence. The signature or mark of the testator or the 

signature of the person signing for him shall be placed in a manner which 

 13

may convey the intention of the testator to give effect to the writing as a 

Will, which is also required to be attested by two or more persons, each of 

whom must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark on the Will or some 

other person sign the Will in the presence or as per the direction of the 

testator. If the witness has received a personal acknowledgment from the 

testator of his signature or mark or the signature of other person signing on 

his behalf, then it is not necessary that both the witnesses shall 

simultaneously remain present. The section also lays down that no 

particular form of attestation is necessary.

14. The plain language of Section 71 makes it clear that any alteration 

made in an unprivileged Will after its execution has no effect unless such 

alteration has been executed in the same manner in which the Will is 

executed. The proviso to this section carves out an exception and lays down 

that such alterations shall be deemed to be duly executed if the signature of 

the testator and the subscription of the witnesses is made in the margin or on 

some other part of the Will opposite or near to such alterations or at the foot 

or end or opposite to a memorandum referring to such alterations and written 

at the end or some part of the Will. 

 14

15. A careful scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence 

produced by them shows that Will Exhibit P.1 was scribed by Narsappayya 

and was witnessed by PW-5 Dr. J. Subba Rao and B.V. Amin. Respondent 

No.1 was not present at the time Exhibit P.1 was scribed and executed by 

Singa Gujaran by putting his left thumb mark. In his testimony, PW-5 stated 

that the contents of Exhibit P.1 were read over to Singa Gujaran by 

Narsappayya and he understood the same. PW-5 expressed ignorance about 

the corrections/alterations made in the Will i.e. scoring out of the word 

`four' and writing of word `three' as also scoring out the name of respondent 

No.1 Rukma. He then stated that Singa Gujaran was suffering from stomach 

cancer and when he sent the patient to Dr. Prabhakar in July/mid-August, he 

was finding it difficult to eat. Later, Dr. Prabhakar referred the patient to Dr. 

Ballal who confirmed that he was suffering from stomach cancer. 

16. We have gone through Exhibit P.1, which was got produced by 

respondent No.1 from the appellant. Four corrections have been made on 

pages 1 and 2 of this document. The figures written in letters (four) were 

substituted with numbers (3) and the name of respondent No.1 was scored 

out (page 2). At the end of the Will, the testator appended his left thumb 

mark. On the right side of thumb mark a line has been written with the ink 

pen/ball pen suggesting that the corrections/alterations were made prior to 

 15

putting of left thumb mark by the testator. However, the space between the 

last line of the typed Will (in Kannada) and what was written with the ink 

pen/ball pen leaves no manner of doubt that the writing on the right side of 

the thumb mark was made after execution of the Will. If the 

corrections/alterations had been made before the testator had appended his 

left thumb mark, there was no reason why the line showing deletion of the 

name of respondent No.1 and corrections in the figures were not reflected in 

the typed Will and why the line was inserted in the little space left between 

the concluding portion of the Will and the space where the left thumb mark 

was put by the testator. Therefore, we approve the view taken by the High 

Court that the corrections/alterations made in Exhibit P1 cannot be said to 

have been duly attested by the testator as per the requirement of Section 71 

of the Act and respondent No.1 is entitled to share in the property specified 

in Schedule `B' appended to the plaint. 

17. The next question which merits consideration is whether Exhibit D.1 

was duly executed by Singa Gujaran and, therefore, the first Will will be 

deemed to have become redundant. Admittedly, Ext. D1 was propounded 

by the appellant and respondent No.2 and was contested by respondent No.1, 

who specifically pleaded that by taking advantage of the ill health of the 

father, the appellant and respondent No.2 conspired and manipulated 

 16

execution of the second Will purporting to disinherit her. According to 

respondent No.1, at the time of execution of the second Will, Singa Gujaran 

was seriously ill and was not in a sound state of mind so as to understand the 

implications and consequences of his actions. In support of this assertion, 

respondent No.1 examined Dr. B.R. Kamath (PW-2), Dr. Prabhakar Rao 

(PW-3) and Dr. C.R. Ballal (PW-4) apart from PW-5 Dr. J. Subba Rao. All 

of them categorically stated that Singa Gujaran was suffering from acute 

stomach cancer and he was not in a position to eat. The statement of PW-6 

is also significant on the issue of health of the executant. This witness gave 

out that the executant was taken to the car by three persons and they brought 

him back to the house in an unconscious state of mind and he was not taking 

any food. PW-6 also gave out that the executant was not in a position to 

walk. The appellant and respondent No.2 relied upon the testimony of PW-

5, who had been examined by respondent No.1 to prove the execution of the 

Will Exhibit P.1. In his cross examination PW-5 disclosed that as per his 

knowledge, Singa Gujaran had made two Wills and he was a witness to the 

second Will as well which, according to him, was also scribed by 

Narsappayya. According to PW-5, the testator had affixed left thumb mark 

on Exhibit D.1 and he had signed the Will as a witness in the clinic. What is 

significant to be noted is that PW-5 did not say that Singa Gujaran had 

 17

affixed left thumb mark in his presence and that he had put his signatures as 

witness in the presence of the testator. As to the state of health of the 

executant, PW-5 categorically stated that he was suffering from acute 

stomach cancer and was not in a position to eat or walk. It has come in the 

evidence of the parties that the executant was admitted in Tara Clinic on 

11.8.1987 and when the doctor attending him found that cancer was at an 

advanced stage, they advised the parties to take him home. It has also come 

on record that just 14 days after the execution of the second Will, the 

executant died. Therefore, it is not possible to find any fault with the finding 

recorded by the High Court that the execution of Exhibit D.1 was highly 

suspicious.

18. It is also apposite to observe that if Singa Gujaran had consciously 

decided to disinherit respondent No.1 in the first Will by appending his left 

thumb mark after corrections/alterations were made and the name of 

respondent No.1 was deleted, there was no reason for him to execute the 

second Will. In her evidence, the appellant and respondent No.2 could not 

offer any tangible explanation as to why it became necessary for her father 

to execute the second Will after he had already disinherited respondent No.1. 

This also supports the conclusion that execution of Exhibit D.1 was not a 

voluntary act of the testator. 

 18

19. We may now advert to the two reasons put forth by the appellant and 

respondent No.2, which did not find favour with the High Court, to 

substantiate their plea that the testator had consciously disinherited 

respondent No.1. The first reason was that respondent No.1 did not attend 

the funeral of her mother and on that count the father was upset. On the face 

of it, this reason does not sound plausible. It is an admitted position that the 

mother of the parties died in 1985. If the father was upset with respondent 

No.1 on the ground that the latter had not come to attend the funeral of the 

mother, then he would not have given any share to her in item No.2 of the 

Schedule appended to Ext. P1. However, the fact of the matter is that the 

testator did give share to respondent No.1 along with two other daughters. It 

is a different thing that some manipulative alterations were made in Ext. P1 

giving an impression that before putting his left thumb mark, the testator had 

consciously disinherited respondent No.1. The second reason was that 

respondent No.1 did not come to attend him during his visit to Bombay in 

May, 1987. In this context, it is important to bear in mind that the appellant 

and respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence to prove that the testator 

had visited Bombay between 25.5.1987 i.e. the date on which the first Will 

was executed and 11.8.1987 when he was admitted in the nursing home. 

That apart, it was highly improbable that the testator, who was terminally ill, 

 19

would have gone to Bombay for the purpose of treatment. Therefore, the so 

called failure of respondent No.1 to meet the testator during his visit to 

Bombay cannot be relied upon as a ground for accepting the version of the 

appellant and respondent No.1 that he was upset with respondent No.1 and 

decided to disinherit her by executing Ext. D1.

20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their 

own costs. 

 ..........................................J.

 [G.S. Singhvi] ...........................................J. [Asok Kumar Ganguly]New DelhiOctober 31, 2011.

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,339 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: