Jheky] lnL;-&;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 224 jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1966 ¼ftls rRipkr~ laa{ksi esa ^vf/kfu;e 1955* dgk tk;sxk½ fo:) fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh] guqekux<+ fnukad 16-8-97 ds izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- izdj.k ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gSa fd oknh pku.k us izfroknh gjir] jfrjke] jkew] dwjMkjke] eq[kjke ds fo:) ,d jktLo okn bLrdjkjgdo gqDe bErukbZ nokeh dk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] uksgj ds U;k;ky; esa bu dFkuksa ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k fd ekStk Hkqdjdk dh jksgh esa [kljk ua- 437 jdck 33 ch?kk 2 fcLok nwyk esgrj dh dCts dkr dh [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe Fkh] ftlds dksbZ larku u gksus ds dkj.k mlus viuh [kqkh o jtkeanh ls olh;rukek oknh ds gd esa rgjhj djk rDehy djok fn;k vkSj vkjkth dkr ds fy, oknh dks lkSai nhA olh;r djus ds djhc 6 ekg ckn nwyk dk nsgkUr gks x;k vkSj oknh vkjkth dk rUgk ekfyd [kkrsnkj dkrdkj gks x;k vkSj vc rd dkr djrk vk jgk gSA lkfcd [kljk ua- 437 jdck 33 ch?kk 2 fcLok lsVyesaV ds ckn uohu [kljk ua- 439 jdck 33 ch?kk 2 fcLok cusA izfroknhx.k us jktLo deZpkfj;ksa ls feydj oknh dh [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe [kljk ua- 439 jdck 33 ch?kk 2 fcLok esa oknh ds lkFk viuk Hkh uke ntZ djok fy;kA bl dkj.k oknh tekcanh laor~ 2029 rk 2038 ls izfroknhx.k dk uke dyetu djokus dk o bl vej dh ?kks"k.kk djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd [kljk ua- 439 jdck 33 ch?kk 2 fcLok rUgk oknh ds dCts dkr dh [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe gSA lEeu rkehy ds ipkr~ izfroknh la- 3 jkew us bdckyh tokcnkok izLrqr fd;kA ks"k izfroknhx.k us ckotwn rkehy dksbZ tokcnkok izLrqr ugha fd;kA oknh us vius okn ds leFkZu esa dqy 7 nLrkost iznkZ djok, vkSj ekSf[kd lk{; ds :i esa ih-MCyw-1 gksk;kj] ih-MCyw- 2 pku.kjke] ih-MCyw- 3 panqjke] ih-MCyw-4 guhQ eksgEen ds c;ku djok,A izfrokn esa izfroknhx.k us fdlh xokg ds c;ku ugha cjok,A i{kdkjksa dks lquus ds ipkr~ mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] uksgj us muds fu.kZ; fnukad 26-9-84 }kjk oknh dk okn [kkfjt dj fn;kA mDr fu.kZ; o fMØh ls O;fFkr gksdj oknh@vihykFkhZ pku.kjke us izFke vihy la- 133@94 jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh] guqekux<+ ds le{k izLrqr dh] ftls mUgksausmuds fu.kZ; fnukad 16-8-97 }kjk fujLr dj nhA mDr fu.kZ; o fMØh ls O;fFkr gksdj oknh@vihykFkhZ pku.kjke us f}rh; vihy jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj esa izLrqr dhA 3- i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dks lquk x;kA 4- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh eq[; nyhy gS fd izR;FkhZ la- 3@1@2] 3@5@6 ds firk jkewjke o izR;FkhZ la- 3@3 ds ifr jkewjke us bdckyh tokcnkok izLrqr fd;kA ks"k izR;FkhZx.k }kjk tokc ugha nsus ds dkj.k fnukad 22-4-82 dks tokcnkok can dj fn;kA bl izdkj fdlh Hkh izR;FkhZ us vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa dh xbZ olh;r ls bUdkj ugha fd;kA fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks nkok vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa fcuk fdlh lk{; ds vknsk 8 fu;e 10 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr fMØh dj fn;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA vihykFkhZ us olh;r dks fl) djus ds fy, xokg ih-MCyw- 1 gksk;kj] tks fd olh;r dks fy[kus okyk gS] ds :i esa djokbZ ,oa LOk;a dh xokgh ih-MCyw- 2 ds :i esa djokbZ] ftUgsa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us ugha ekudj fof/kd =qfV dhA olh;r ds vk/kkj ij yEcs vjls ls fooknxzLr vkjkth ij vihykFkhZ ds gd lekIr ugha gksrsA olh;r gLrkraj.k ds vUrxZr ugha vkrhA bl dkj.k olh;r }kjk Hkwfe nsus ds fy, jktLFkku mifuosku vf/kfu;e] 1954 ¼ftls rRipkr~ ^vf/kfu;e 1954* kCn ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 13 ds vuqlkj ftyk/khk dh Lohd`fr ysuk vko;d ugha gSA fooknxzLr vkjkth ij vihykFkhZ dk izkjEHk ls gh dCtk gS] vr% vihykFkhZ dh vihy eatwj dh tkdj v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; fujLr fd, tk,A vius dFku ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus vkj-vkj-Mh- 1958 ist 1] vkj-vkj-Mh- 1993 ist 229 U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dks izLrqr fd;kA 5- fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZx.k dh nyhy gS fd vihykFkhZ dks lk{; ,oa lquokbZ dk iw.kZ volj iznku dj fopkj.k U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k] ftldh iqf"V v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; us dhA v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; leorhZ gSA dkuwu dk dksbZ fcUnw jktLo e.My }kjk fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk ks"k ugha jgrkA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd vihykFkhZ okn ysdj vk;k blfy, okn dks fl) djus dk Hkkj ml ij Fkk] ftls izekf.kr djus esa og iw.kZr% vlQy jgk gSA vihykFkhZ ?kks"k.kk o LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk okn ysdj vk;k ijUrq fooknxzLr vkjkth ij vihykFkhZ dk dCtk ugha Fkk] bl dkj.k mlds }kjk yk;k x;k okn iks"k.kh; ugha Fkk o gSA vius mijksDr dFku ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus vkj-vkj-Mh- 1992 ist 114] vkj-vkj-Mh- 1991 ist 397] vkj-vkj-Mh- 1991 ist 398 U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dk lgkjk fy;kA ftl jkst vihykFkhZ okn yk;k ml jkst og fVusaV Hkh ugha FkkA lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 68 ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ us olh;r dks fl) ugha djok;k gSA ^vf/kfu;e 1954* dh /kkjk 13 esa lakks/ku 1984 esa gqvkA mlls iwoZ bl /kkjk esa sale excange gift, ds lkFk will kCn Hkh FkkA vr% will /kkjk 13 ds izko/kkuksa ls ckf/kr gS] D;ksafd ftyk/khk dh vkKk fcuk olh;r ls Hkh Hkwfe gLrkarj.k ugha gks ldrh FkhA vius mijksDr dFku ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus vkj-vkj-Mh- 2002 ist 449 U;kf;d n`"VkUr dks izLrqr fd;k vkSj vUr esa fuosnu fd;k fd vihykFkhZ dh vihy dkWLV lfgr [kkfjt dh tkosaA 6- geus i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds rdksZ ds Øe esa i=koyh dk lE;d v/;;u fd;k o muds }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa o rdksZ ij euu fd;kA 7- vknsk 8 fu;e 1] 5 o 10 dks foLrkj ls le>krs gq, ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, (1988) 4 SCC 619 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS%& "23. An objection to our above conclusion has been raised on the basis of the provisions of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 1, 5 and 10 of this order have been recently amended by the Amendment Act of 1976. We find nothing in these rules which will support the contention urged on behalf of the respondents. Rule 1 merely requires that the defendant should present a written statement of his defence within the time permitted by the Court. Under Rule 5(2), where the defendant has not filed a pleading it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint except against a person under disability but the court may in its discretion require any such fact to be proved. Again under Rule 10 when any party from whom a written statement is required fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, the court "shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit". It will be seen that these rules are only permissive in nature. They enable the court in an apropriate case to pronounce a decree straightway on the basis of the plaint and the averments contained therein. Though the present language of Rule 10 says that the court "shall" pronounce judgment against him, it is obvious from the language of the rule that there is still an option with the corut either to pronouce judgment on the basis of the plaint against the defendant or to make such other appropriate order as the court may think fit. Therefore, there is nothing in these rules, which makes it mandatory for the court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff straightway because a written statement has not been filed. Reference was made before us to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5. This sub-rule, however, has application only in a case where a pleading is filed but does not contain a specific or implicit denial of the averments contained in the plaint or other document to which it is reply. Rule 5(1) cannot be made use of to sustain the contention that where there is no written statement the court is bound to accept the statements contained in the plaint and pass a decree straightway. Rule 5(1) cannot be made use of to sustain the contention that where there is no written statement the court is bound to accept the statements contained in the plaint and pass a decree straightway. These provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, far from supporting the contentions of the plaintiff that a decree on the basis of the plaint should follow a failure to file the written statement, rather indicate a contrary position, namely, that even in such cases, it is matter for the court to exercise a discretion as to the manner in which the further proceedings should take place. We, therefore, do not think that the terms of Order 8 in any way conflict with the conclusion reached by us." 8- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us Balraj Taneja vs. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS%& "14. This Rule, namely Rule 10, was also amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976). Prior to its amendment, it was held in a number of decisions that the rule can be invoked only in those situations where the court has required the defendant to file the written statement in terms of Rule 9 of Order 8. A few other High Courts had taken the view that this rule would be applicable even to those cases where a written statement was required to be filed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. The conflict of decisions has been set at rest by providing specifically under this rule that where a party from whom a written statement is required either under Rule 1 or Rule 9 of Order 8 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, the court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. Rule 10 thus governs both the situations where a written statement is required under Rule 1 of Order 8 as also where it has been demanded under Rule 9. In both the situations, if the written statement has not been filed by the defendant, it will be open to the court to pronouce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. In both the situations, if the written statement has not been filed by the defendant, it will be open to the court to pronouce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. It is to be noticed that if the written statement is not filed, the court is required to pronouce judgment against the defendant. The words "against him" are to be found in Rule 10 of Order 8 which obviously means that the judgment will be pronounced against the defendant. This rule also gives a discretion either to pronounce judgment against the defendant or "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit." These words are of immense significance, inasmuch as they give a discretion to the court not to pronounce judgment against the defendant and instead pass such order as it may think fit in relation to the suit. mi;qZDr ds ifjizs{; esa ge vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds bl rdZ ls lger ugha gS fd D;ksafd izR;FkhZx.k us okn dk tokcnkok izLrqr ugha fd;k] bl dkj.k fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks o v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; dks vknsk 8 fu;e 10 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr vihykFkhZ dk okn fMØh dj nsuk pkfg, FkkA 9- olh;r iznkZ ih- 1@, gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us Savithri & Ors. vs. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. IV (2007) C.L.T. 127 (SC) esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& 14- The legal requirements in terms of the said provisions are now well-settled. A Will like any other document is to be proved in terms of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder. The testamentary capacity of the popounder must also be established. Execution of the Will by the testator has to be proved. At least one attesting witness is required to be examined for the purpose of proving the execution of the Will. It is required to be shown that the Will has been signed by the testator with his free will and that at the relevant time has was in sound disposing state of mind and understood the nature and effect of the disposition. It is also required to be established that he has signed the Will in the presence of two witnesses who attested his signature in his presence on in the presence of each other. It is also required to be established that he has signed the Will in the presence of two witnesses who attested his signature in his presence on in the presence of each other. Only when there exist suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before it can be accepted as genuine." ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fujatu meskpUnz tkskh cuke e`nqyk T;ksfr jk; ,.M vnlZ A ¼2007½ lh-,y-Vh- 159 ¼,l-lh-½ esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& "Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the mode and maner in which the exection of an unprovileged Will is be proved. Section 68 postulates the mode and manner in which proof of execution of document is required by law to be attested. It in unequivocal terms states that execution of Will must be proved at least by one attested witness, if an attesting witness is alive subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. A Will is to prove what is lossely called as primary evidence, except where proof is permitted by leading secondary evidence. Unlike other documents, proof of execution of any other document under the Act would not be sufficient as in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, execution must be proved at least by one of the attesting witnesses. While making attestation, there must be an animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness, meaning thereby, he must intend to attest and extrinsic evidence on this point is receivable. The burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he had put his signature out of his own free Will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of Will, a signature, of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of Will, a signature, of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator." mi;qZDr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa o lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 68 ds ifjizs{; esa ;fn ge izuxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa dks ns[ks rks vihykFkhZ us olh;r ds xokg nqtZuflag o teky flag dks xokgh esa izLrqr ugha fd;kA bl izdkj vihykFkhZx.k us olh;r dks fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i fl) ugha fd;kA olh;r fy[kus okyk xokg gksk;kjflag gS] tks fd xzke iapk;r dk lfpo Fkk] mls vVsfLVax foVusl ugha ekuk tk ldrkA 10- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us N. Kamalam vs. Ayyasamy (2001) 7 SCC 503 esa ;g dgk gS fd%& "The requirement of attestation presently in the country is statutory in nature, as noticed hereinbefore, and cannot as such be done away with, under any circumstances. While it it true that in a testamentary disposition, the intend of the attestor shall have to be assessed in its proper perspective but that does not however mean and imply non-compliance with a statutory requirement. The intention of the attestor and its paramount importance cannot thwart the statutory requirement. No doubt the scribe has subscribed his signature but a scribe in accordance with common English parlance means and implies the person who writes the document. Significantly, however, in England the Kings Secretary is popularly known as Scribaregis. Be that as it may, in common parlance an attribute of scribe as a mere writer as noted above, does not stretch the matter further. In the contextual facts, while the writer did, in fact, subscribe his signature but the same does not underrate the statutory requirement of attestation as more fully described hereinbefore. True it is, that strenuous submissions have been made in support of the appeal that "attesting witnesses" haveno other role to play but to subscribe their signatures inorder to prove the genuineness of the will and that in fact, when the scribe signs the will, the same can be read as attestation. True it is, that strenuous submissions have been made in support of the appeal that "attesting witnesses" haveno other role to play but to subscribe their signatures inorder to prove the genuineness of the will and that in fact, when the scribe signs the will, the same can be read as attestation. Needless to record, however, that the scribe Arunachalam was examined and it is on this score the learned advocate contended that the evidence of an attestor thus can be said to be on record so as to make the document namely the "will" in the instant case thus otherwise in accordance with law. 26. The effect of subscribing a signature on the part of the scribe cannot in our view be identified to be of the same status as that of the attesting witnesses. The signature of the attesting witness as noticed above on a document, requiring attestation (admittedly in the case of a will the same is required), is a requirement of the statute, thus cannot be equated with that of the scribe. "28. ...The animus to attest, thus, is not available, so far as the scribe is concerned: he is not a witness to the will but a mere writer of the will. The statutory requirement as noticed above cannot thus be transposed in favour of the writer, rather goes against the propounder since both the witnesses are named therein with detailed address and no attempt has been made to bring tem or to produce them before the court so as to satisfy the judicial conscience. Presence of scribe and his signature appearing on the document does not by itself be taken to be the proof of due attestation unless the situation is so expressed in the document itself - this is again, however, not the situation existing presently in the matter under consideration. Some grievance was made before this Court that sufficient opportunity was not being made available, we are however, unable to record our concurrence therewith. Some grievance was made before this Court that sufficient opportunity was not being made available, we are however, unable to record our concurrence therewith. No attempt whatsoever has been made to bring the attesting witnesses who are obviously available." ijUrq izuxr izdj.k esa olh;r dks Attesting witness dks izLrqr u dj vihykFkhZ us viuk okn fl) ugha fd;k gS bl dkj.k izR;FkhZ }kjk xokg ugha izLrqr djus ls muds fo:) izfrdwy /kkj.kk ugha yh tk ldrhA 11- lu~ 1984 ls iwoZ ^vf/kfu;e 1954* dh /kkjk 13 bl izdkj Fkh%& "(1) No tenant shall transfer or charge his right or interest vested in him by or under this Act, or Section 15-AAA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955), without the consent in writing of the State Government or an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, given on such conditions as may be prescribed by way of sale, exchange, gift, will mortgage or in any manner otherwise than by exchange as permitted by Section 12, except to the State Government or except by way of mortgage for the purpose of obtaining a loan for development of his holding from the State Government or a land development bank as defined in the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act,1965 (Rajasthan Act 13 of 1965), or any scheduled bank or any other institution notified by the State Government in that behalf, in that behalf, in the Official Gazette, or Sub-let the same for more than five years in the case of tenant who has acquired khatedari rights. (2) Any such transfer, sub-lease or charge made in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be void and if the transferee has obtained possession he shall be ejected under the orders of the Collector and the land transferred, sub-let or charged, as the case may be, shall, after giving the transferor an opportunity of being heard resumed." ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us nkjkflag o vU; cuke esgj flag o vU; vkj-vkj-Mh- 2002 i`"B 449 esa /kkjk 13 dh foospuk djrs gq, ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& "(A) Raj. Colonisation Act, 1954, Section 13 - Raj. Tenancy Act, 1956, Ss. 38 & 39 - Transfer of rightor interest (khatedari) by `Will in the lands governed by under Colonisation Act, held, prohibited without consent of Collector under unamended Section 13 used expression `transfer in its wider sense so as to include `Will. (B) Raj. Colonisation Act, 1954, Section 13 - Raj. Tenancy Act, 1956, Ss. 38 & 39 - Transfer of rightor interest (khatedari) by `Will in the lands governed by under Colonisation Act, held, prohibited without consent of Collector under unamended Section 13 used expression `transfer in its wider sense so as to include `Will. (B) Raj. Colonisation Act, 1954, Section 13 - Prohibition of transfer by `Will - Constitutional validity of- Held, Constitutional validity of Section 13 has been upheld by D.B. in Mukhtiar Singhs case and the petitioners cannot be allowed to reagitate the same issue- Moreover, Raj. Colonisation Act has been placed in IX Schedule of Constn. and none of its provisions can be challenged on the anvil of violation of Arts. Colonisation Act has been placed in IX Schedule of Constn. and none of its provisions can be challenged on the anvil of violation of Arts. 14 or 19." lu~ 1984 ds sale, exchange, gift ds lkFk will kCn Hkh FkkA olh;r dk nLrkost lu~ 1964 dk gSA nwykjke dh e`R;q 1965 esa gqbZA will olh;rdrkZZZzZ dh e`R;q ds lkFk gh izHkko esa vk tkrh gS] vr% izuxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, olh;r ^vf/kfu;e 1954* dh /kkjk 13 ls ckf/kr gksrh gSA vihykFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar t;flag cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku 1993 vkj-vkj-Mh- i`"B 239 o rksykjke cuke eksgu flag vkj-vkj-Mh- 1993 i`"B 525 orZeku izdj.k ds rF;ksa ij ykxw ugha gksrsA t;flag dk izdj.k ^vf/kfu;e 1954* dh /kkjk 20 ls lacaf/kr gS rFkk rksykjke dk izdj.k /kkjk 14] vkoUVu o lakks/ku ls lacaf/kr gS] tcfd gS] ftls ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us Mh-ch- flfoy Lisky vihy uEcj 996@86 ^eq[R;kj flag cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku o vU;* tks fnukad 27-3-95 dks fuf.kZr dh xbZ] esa fof/k ekU; Bgjk;k gSA 12- vfHkys[k ij vihykFkhZ us ,slh dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gS ftlls fufoZokn :Ik ls bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk tk lds fd fookfnr vkjkth ij vihykFkhZ dk dCtk Fkk o gSA geusa vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ckyk cuke jko jktk mn;flag vkj-vkj-Mh- 1958 i`"B 1 ftlesa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& "It is rule of evidence that it is the bounden duty of a party who personally knows the facts of his case to come into the witness bos in build up his case and if he fails to do so, his non-appearance as a witness will be one of the strongest possible circumstances to discredit the truth of his case, Hence it could, safely be presumed that he abstained from giving evidence for the reason that the truth was on the opposite side." bl izdkj vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar izuxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k mls dksbZ enn ugha djrkA 13- fopkj.k U;k;ky; us viuk eUrO; fof/k vuq:i ,oa lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;k gS] tks U;k;ksfpr gSA v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; us vfHkys[kh; lk{; ds vk/kkj ij muds eUrO; dh iqf"V dh gSA ge voj U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fu.kZ;ksa esa fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko;drk ugha ikrsA f}rh; vihy fujLr ;ksX; gSA 14- mijksDr ds izdkk esa vihy cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA fo}ku~ voj U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ;ksa dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSaA 15- fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA