Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2234 (MAD)

Mr. Venkataraman v. Radhabai Ammal

2010-06-07

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2010
Judgment :- This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4 of 1991 dated 20.9.1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Tiruvannamalai. 2. The averments in the plaint in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal run as follows:- (a) Plaintiff and the defendant are sister and brother. They had another brother by name Madhavan, who died at the age of three. Their father died on 25.3.1949 and the mother died on 5.4.1979. The father of the plaintiffs married one Nagammal. Since the said Nagammal did not begot any children, the plaintiffs father married one Ranganayaki as his second wife and begot the plaintiff, the defendant and Madhavan. The plaintiff states that her father was the absolute owner of the properties in question. The house has been constructed by the plaintiffs father and the entire family have been living in the said house. The plaintiff further states that there has been no ancestral properties inherited by the her father and the properties in question are the separate and self acquired properties of her father. (b)The plaintiff states that her father while he was in a sound disposing state of mind had executed a Registered Will on 24.12.1948 in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant and the deceased Madhavan bequeathing his properties. In the said last Will, the plaintiffs father had appointed an executor, namely, Pal Reddiar son of Jalla Reddiar @ Ramasamy Reddy and authorised him to be in possession and enjoyment of his properties after his death as an execute of the Will. The plaintiffs father lived for about three months after the execution of the said last Will and her brother Madhavan died after one month from the execution of the said Will. Prior to the execution of the Will, there has been some misunderstanding between her father and mother and they lived separately. But after the execution of the Will, they joined together. The plaintiff states that after the death of her father, the executor took over the management of the properties and he purchased the properties at Thenmudiyonoor village out of the income derived from the properties in question. But after the execution of the Will, they joined together. The plaintiff states that after the death of her father, the executor took over the management of the properties and he purchased the properties at Thenmudiyonoor village out of the income derived from the properties in question. Thus, after the death of father, mother and brother Madhavan and Nagammal, step mother, who died issueless, the plaintiff and the defendant are the co- owners of the suit property and they are in joint and constructive possession of the suit properties. By obtaining loan from the Block Development Officer, an electric motor and pump set was installed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been given in marriage at Arcot and she has been very often visiting the suit village and sharing the masool with the defendant. (c) Since the plaintiffs need money for her childrens marriage, she approached the defendant to have amicable division of the suit property. But the defendant was not willing to have amicable division but directed the plaintiff to have the division done through court of law. The plaintiff states that the plaintiffs mother while she was alive had pledged 32 sovereigns of gold jewels at Co-operative Urban Bank, Tiruvannamalai in her name and the same are shown in the plaint schedule. She could not redeem the same during her life time. The money was borrowed for family necessity only. Hence, after the death of the mother the defendant had redeemed the jewels out of the income from the joint properties and he is in possession of the jewels. The plaintiff is entitled to half share over the jewels also. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a lawyers notice to the defendant on 15.12.1990 calling upon him to divide the properties. Since the defendant did not send any reply, she filed the above suit praying to pass a judgment and decree (a) directing a division of the suit properties into two equal shares and allotting one such share to the plaintiff due regard being had to good and bad quality of the soil by appointing a Commissioner and putting the plaintiff in possession of the such share. (b) directing the defendant to account to the plaintiff regarding the income from the suit properties from the date of suit till the date of delivery of plaintiffs share (c) directing the defendant to pay the costs of suit to the plaintiff and (d) such other reliefs. 3. The defendant in his written statement would contend as follows:- The defendant states that the suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. The defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant states that the property in question are the joint family properties of the defendant, his father Rangasamy Reddiar and his brother Madhavan, who died at the age of three. After the death of the father, the defendant became the absolute owner of the entire properties as sole Co-parcenor. The defendant states that the plaintiff has married to one P.R.Kothandaraman and through him, she has one daughter. After the birth of her child, she came to fathers house and cultivated the illicit intimacy with one Natarajan, who was living in the opposite to the defendants house. In view of the said illicit intimacy, the defendant has severed all connections with the plaintiff. (b)The defendant states that his father Rangasamy Reddiar was not the absolute owner of the properties in question. The purchase of the suit properties was made from and out of the income of the joint family properties and joint family assets. The defendant denied the allegations that the house was constructed by Rangasamy Reddiar and there has been no ancestral properties inherited by Rangasamy Reddiar. The said Rangasamy Reddiar sold some of the ancestral lands to third party and purchased the suit properties. The defendant further denied the allegations that his father executed a last Will and appointed an executor, namely, Pal Reddiar and the original Will is with the defendant. The defendant states that the defendants father had given the properties to the defendant and not to the plaintiff. The defendant further states that no loan was obtained by the plaintiff to install pumpset. The defendant denied the allegations that he is sharing the masool with the plaintiff. The defendant states that the defendants father had given the properties to the defendant and not to the plaintiff. The defendant further states that no loan was obtained by the plaintiff to install pumpset. The defendant denied the allegations that he is sharing the masool with the plaintiff. The defendant states that the allegations that after the death of the the plaintiffs father, mother, Madhavan, and Nagammal, step mother, who died issueless, the plaintiff and the defendant became the joint owners of the suit properties as an heir to deceased Rangasamy Reddiar and thus, the plaintiff and the defendant are the jont and constructive possession of the suit properties are all false. The defendant denied the statement of the plaintiff that 30 sovereign of jewels pledged by Ranganayaki Ammal were redeemed by the defendant. The defendant states that he is not in possession of any jewels and even otherwise, the plaintiff is not entitled to any half share over the alleged jewels. The defendant also denied the statement made in the plaint that the plaintiff approached him for amicable settlement. The defendant states that he sent a suitable reply for the lawyers notice sent by the plaintiff and received the acknowledgement for the same. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the suit with costs. 4. On the above pleadings, the trial Court had framed the relevant issues. During trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. On the side of the defendant, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs. D1 to D51 were marked. 5. After going through the evidence on record and after giving due deliberation to the submissions made on both sides, the learned trial judge has decreed the suit partially. Aggrieved against the said decision of the trial Court, the defendant had preferred this appeal. 6. C.M.P.No.1349 of 2008: This is an application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to file additional evidence in the appeal. The crux of the allegations made in the affidavit are as follows: The deceased 1st respondent was the sister of the petitioner and their father Rangasamy Reddiar who died on 25.02.1949 and their mother Ranganayaki died on 05.04.1979. The first wife of father namely Mrs. Nagammmal died in the year 1961. The crux of the allegations made in the affidavit are as follows: The deceased 1st respondent was the sister of the petitioner and their father Rangasamy Reddiar who died on 25.02.1949 and their mother Ranganayaki died on 05.04.1979. The first wife of father namely Mrs. Nagammmal died in the year 1961. The deceased 1st respondent got married the 2nd respondent Kothandaraman and she deserted him and started living with 4th respondent Mr. M. Natarajan and thereby she severed connection with the petitioners family. In the suit before the lower court the petitioner contested that the suit properties were joint family properties and the will dated 24.12.1948 said to have been executed by the father was not a genuine document. However the suit was decreed and against which the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner could find certain documents after filing of the first appeal before this court to prove that the suit properties is in the names of his father Rangasamy Reddiar were ancestral properties and the sale deeds dated 09.04.1919 and 09.09.1922 executed by late Rangasamy Reddiar and the sale proceeds itself were utilised for the purpose of the suit properties. Since these documents could not be produced at the time of trial and were found only after filing the first appeal before this court, this documents have to be permitted to be produced as additional evidence. 7. The contentions raised by the respondents 4 and 5 would be thus: The application filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of long delay. The will executed by the grand father of 5th respondent was a registered document dated 24.12.1948 was considered to be true and genuine and the suit was decreed by the lower court in favour of the 5th respondent mother the deceased 1st respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings the 1st respondent executed a will dated 22.02.1991 bequeathing her share in the plaint schedule to the legatees mentioned in the will and subsequently the 1st respondent by 08.07.2001. The petitioner has taken advantage of the long interval in the impleadment of respondents 4 and 5 had come forward with the application for reception of additional evidence with false plea. The petitioner as D.W.1 has categorically admitted about his ignorance over the transaction had prior to his birth. The petitioner has taken advantage of the long interval in the impleadment of respondents 4 and 5 had come forward with the application for reception of additional evidence with false plea. The petitioner as D.W.1 has categorically admitted about his ignorance over the transaction had prior to his birth. The present application filed by the petitioner for reception of additional evidence is not maintainable due to long delay and the petitioner did not explain the said delay for non production of documents before court below and before this court while filing the appeal. The said documents are not helpful to adjudicate the case of the petitioner since the Rangasamy Reddiar himself had stated in the will that the properties are all his self acquired properties. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner for reception of those two documents are not maintainable and therefore it has to be dismissed. 8. On a careful perusal of the pleadings, evidence adduced on either side and the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court, I could see the following points emerged for disposal in this appeal:- 1. Whether the will dated 24.12.1948 was executed by Rangasamy Reddiar in a sound and disposing state of mind in the presence of two attesters and if so has it come into effect? 2. Whether the defendant was entitled to the suit properties through adverse possession? 3. Whether the suit properties were the self acquired properties of deceased Rangasamy Reddiar? 4. Whether the suit properties were the ancestral properties of Rangasamy Reddiar? 5. Whether the two sale deeds sought to be produced as additional evidence are ordered to be received? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit property as prayed for? 7. Whether the will dated 22.02.1991 was executed by the deceased plaintiff in a sound and disposing state of mind in the presence of two attesting witnesses? 8. Whether the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to succeed to the estate of the plaintiff as legal heirs? 9. Whether the respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to succeed to the estate of the plaintiff as legatees of the will dated 22.02.1991? 10. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower court are liable to be set aside and is the appeal allowable? 11. Whether the application in C.M.P.No.1349 of 2008 for reception of additional evidence is allowable? 12. 10. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower court are liable to be set aside and is the appeal allowable? 11. Whether the application in C.M.P.No.1349 of 2008 for reception of additional evidence is allowable? 12. To what relief the appellant is entitled for? 9. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, the learned senior appearing for Mrs. Hemalatha, the learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant and Mr. P. Gopalan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. 10. Learned Senior counsel Mr. R. Subramanian would submit in his argument that the plaintiff and the defendant were sister and brother born to Rangasamy Reddiar and Ranganayaki Ammal along with predeceased brother Madhavan and the father Rangasamy Reddiar had married one Nagammal as his first wife and they had no issues through the said woman. The said Rangasamy Reddiar had produced items 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties from and out of ancestral nucleus and the remaining items 5 to 10 of schedule mentioned properties were produced from the income of the said properties but however, the lower court had erred in finding that the properties were belonging to him separately and decreed the suit. He would further submit in his argument that after the death of first wife of father Nagammal in 1961 the defendant alone was in exclusive and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property items 1 to 10 by way of ouster against the plaintiff and on that aspect also plaintiff was not entitled to the relief. 11. He would further submit in his argument that the plaintiff as a daughter would not succeed to the estate of Rangasamy Reddiar since the father Rangasamy Reddiar died on 25.02.1949 long prior to the promalgation of Hindu Succession Act in the year 1956. He would further submit in his argument that will said to have been executed by the father on 24.12.1948 was not proved correct to law and further the plaintiff could not get any right from the suit properties, but for the will he would further submit that the plaintiff failed to prove the will as per the provisions of Section 53 of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 and 69 of Indian Evidence Act. He would bring it to the notice of this court in respect of unreported judgment of this court made in O.S.A.Nos. 288 and 289 of 2006 dated 25.07.2008 in between N. Ranganathan vs. N. Saraswathi and Ors for the said principle of law. He would further submit in his argument that as per Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act at least the two attesting witnesses shall be called for and examined to prove the attestation. The said provision was not complied with by the plaintiff in proving the will dated 24.12.1948 by examining anyone of the attesting witness. No other witness have been examined for the proof of will and however the lower court had come to a conclusion that the will has been proved because of its registration, which is erroneous in law. When the attesters are not available or the examination of attesters are not possible according to Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act the person who knows about the handwriting of the attesters should have been examined to prove the attestation and that was also not done by the plaintiff and still the will was concluded as genuine one by the lower court. He would more over submit that the plaintiff did not take steps to summon the original will from the Sub Registrar Office and without the production of the original will the court had come to a conclusion that the will was a genuine document which is certainly not in accordance with law. 12. He would further submit that the properties mentioned in item 1 to 4 in the suit properties were purchased by the father through the ancestral nucleus and at the time of trial and thereafter while filing the first appeal the appellant/petitioner was not aware of the existence of the two sale deeds executed by the father Rangasamy Reddiar in favour of third persons dated 09.04.1919 and 09.09.1922 for the purpose buying the suit items 1 to 4 and they are available only now and therefore they should have been ordered to receive as additional evidence. If producing the documents will show nexus of the ancestral nucleus with purchase of Item 1 to 4 as suit as ancestral properties. If producing the documents will show nexus of the ancestral nucleus with purchase of Item 1 to 4 as suit as ancestral properties. According to him these documents would help the court to come to a correct conclusion that the properties are joint family properties in which the plaintiff may not have any title on the death of his father Rangasamy Reddiar prior to the introduction of Hindu Succession Act 1956. He would also submit that the respondents 4 and 5 are claiming to be the legatees under a will executed by the deceased plaintiff and it has to be proved before the court on law for the purpose of claiming the share of the plaintiffs as legatees of the will. All these points require further evidence and the court may call for finding of those aspect or safely remand the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. He would further submit in his argument that the judgment and decree of lower court passed in the said suit have to be set aside for facilitating to come to a correct conclusion for adducing further evidence in the said case. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 would submit in his argument that the said deed which was sought to be produced as additional documents now are not necessary since the testator himself has mentioned in the will dated 24.12.1948 that those properties were his self acquired properties and he has disposed the said properties as mentioned in the said will. Moreover, the evidence of D.W.1 would go a long way to show that he did not know about the circumstances prevailed during the purchase of items 1 to 4 of suit properties by the father of the present applicant. The two sale deeds produced now would prove the case of the defendant that the properties are joint family properties is not sustainable. 14. He would further submit that the properties mentioned in items 5 to 10 were admittedly belonging to plaintiff/defendant and Nagammal by Pal Reddiar and that itself would go to show that the properties mentioned in item 1 to 4 were intended to be bequeathed by father in favour of the plaintiff and defendant. 14. He would further submit that the properties mentioned in items 5 to 10 were admittedly belonging to plaintiff/defendant and Nagammal by Pal Reddiar and that itself would go to show that the properties mentioned in item 1 to 4 were intended to be bequeathed by father in favour of the plaintiff and defendant. He would further submit in his argument that the sale proceeds through the sale deeds of the years 1919 and 1922 could not have been utilised by the father in the year 1928 to buy A1 property and in the year 1932 to A2 property. The property in Ex. A2 was purchased in auction sale. He would further submit in his argument that he had taken all the steps to examine the scribe of the will who was agent more that 90 years but it could not be done owing to the witnesses disability and he has tried his level best to examine the witness and the lower court was right in holding that the will executed by the father was a true document. He would draw the attention of the court to the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2008 (5) ALT 505 in between Sri Gandrapu Gangaraj Choultry vs. G.S.V.V.Appa Rao (died) per L.Rs and others and would submit that in the similar circumstances the said court held that the will was true. 15. He would also draw the attention of the court to a reported judgment of the Apex court reported in 2007 3 MLJ 834 (SC) in between Makhan Singh (D) by Lrs vs. Kulwant Singh for the principle that when there is no income from the members of the joint family, the properties should have been deemed as self acquired property on whose name the property stands. Therefore, the properties purchased by the father through Ex. A1 and A2 could be construed as self acquired properties of the father and he could validly execute the will through Ex. A3 and as per the said will the plaintiff and the defendant are equally entitled to items 1 to 4 of the suit properties. Therefore, the properties purchased by the father through Ex. A1 and A2 could be construed as self acquired properties of the father and he could validly execute the will through Ex. A3 and as per the said will the plaintiff and the defendant are equally entitled to items 1 to 4 of the suit properties. The remaining items 5 to 10 and the jewels described in items 11 to 14 are belonging to the family purchased through the income derived from items 1 to 4 of the suit properties and the plaintiff was left with the defendant and their mother till mother died in the year 1979 and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to half shares in items 5 to 14 also. He would submit further in his argument that the lower court had discussed all the points in detail and had come to a correct conclusion and therefore, there is no need to interfere in the judgment and decree of the lower court. 16. He would further submit that the plaintiff died after the filing of this appeal by the defendant. The plaintiff had executed a will even in the year 22.02.1991 bequeathing her share in the suit properties in favour of respondents 4 and 5 with whom she lived and the 4th respondent lived with her as her husband and 5th respondent was born to them out of the said coacervation and therefore as per the will dated 22.02.1991, the respondents 4 and 5 are the correct parties to succeed to the estate of the plaintiff. Therefore, he would request the court to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and decree passed by the lower court in favour of the plaintiff and held that the respondents 4 and 5 are entitled to succeed to the share of the plaintiff in the suit properties. 17. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 18. While considering the arguments advanced on either side it has become necessary to dispose the case as per the points framed earlier. 17. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 18. While considering the arguments advanced on either side it has become necessary to dispose the case as per the points framed earlier. Points 3,4,5,7 and 9: The relationship in between the plaintiff and defendants that they are sisters and brother born to Rangasamy Reddiar and Ranganayagi his second wife and the father Rangasamy Reddiar married first wife Nagammal, there was no issue born to them and the father died on 25.06.1949 and first wife died in the year 1961 without any issue and the mother Ranganayagi died on 05.04.1979. It is also in dispute that one Madhavan born to father and mother of the parties was also died even in the year 1949. The plaintiff was married to one Kothandaraman the 2nd respondent herein and out of the wedlock the 3rd respondent daughter was born to them and thereafter the dispute erupted in between Kothandaraman and plaintiff and they got separated and the plaintiff had illicit intimacy with the 4th respondent Natarajan and she had lived with him to the disgrace of the family and she also had eloped with the said Natarajan and lived as husband and wife and thereby begot the 5th respondent out of the said relationship. The evidence of the plaintiff herself would disclose the said facts. In these circumstances, the lower court had after a full fledged trial had come to the conclusion that the suit properties 1 to 4 were ancestral properties of the Rangasamy Reddiar and the will executed by him in Ex. A.3 was a valid and genuine document and the properties in items 5 to 10 were purchased out of the income from the items 1 to 4 of the properties and the plaintiff is found entitled to half share in items 1 to 4 through the will and the remaining items 5 to 10 as that of the property belonging to both the plaintiff and defendants and the suit was decreed. The respondents 4 and 5 are claiming to be the legatees of the plaintiff share in the suit under the color of the will dated 22.02.1991 which is yet to be produced and proved before the court of law. But per the will the respondents 2 and 3 would be the legal heirs along with the 5th respondent. The respondents 4 and 5 are claiming to be the legatees of the plaintiff share in the suit under the color of the will dated 22.02.1991 which is yet to be produced and proved before the court of law. But per the will the respondents 2 and 3 would be the legal heirs along with the 5th respondent. The said point has to be decided in case the judgment and decree of the lower court are confirmed and awarding the decree in favour of the plaintiffs legal heirs. At the same time the contention of the defendant was that items 1 to 4 are the joint family properties of father Rangasamy Reddiar and the defendant, since Rangasamy Reddiar died on 25.06.1949 as per law prevailing then the whole properties devolved upon the defendant by survivorship and not through any other law which were not enacted and prevailing then in favour of the plaintiff. For the said purpose, he would state that father Rangasamy Reddiar had sold his ancestral properties to some third parties and from and out of the said sale of properties he had earned and applied the said fund for the purchase of items 1 to 4 purchased through Ex. A1 and A2. The recitals of documents sought to be produced at this stage were of the year 1919 and 1922 in which it has been stated by the Rangasamy Reddiar that those properties were belonging to him ancestrally. When the father Rangasamy Rediar was having certain properties and the documents pertaining to the sales effected by him show prima facie that the properties sold were ancestral properties those documents prior to Ex. A.1 and A.2 would be relevant for the purpose of deciding the case. Those documents have to be explained through some oral evidence as to its nexus with Ex. A1 and A2. The reasons adduced by the petitioner/appellant would go to show that he could come to know about the existence of the said sale deeds after filing the first appeal and therefore, he could not depose before the lower court about the said documents and could not produce those documents during the time of trial cannot be rejected. Therefore, opportunity should have been given to the defendant to defend the case with these important documents and therefore these documents are necessary to be marked as defendants documents Ex. B. 52 and B.53. Therefore, opportunity should have been given to the defendant to defend the case with these important documents and therefore these documents are necessary to be marked as defendants documents Ex. B. 52 and B.53. As already discussed those documents are also require more further evidence to establish the case of the defendant. Whether such evidence would be available or not cannot be decided at this stage. Similarly the proof of will relied upon by the respondents 4 and 5 for the entitlement of the share of the plaintiff has also to be decided with oral evidence merely because the rival claimants namely respondents 1 and 2 have not appeared and the contended the claims of respondents 4,5 and 6 this court cannot uphold the claim of respondents 4 and 5 through the will dated 22.02.1991 certainly to prove the will has to establish u/s. 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sec. 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. This requires oral evidence on the side of the respondents 4 and 5. Likewise the contentions of the learned Senior counsel that the original will dated 24.12.1948 executed by Rangasamy Reddiar was not produced nor any attested witnesses has been examined by the plaintiff and yet the will was upheld by the lower court prior to the law cannot be simply brushed aside. The important witnesses namely Rangasamy Reddiar who was essential to the will Ex. A3 was not examined. According to the unreported judgment in O.S.A. Nos. 288 and 289 of 2006 in between N. Ranganathan vs. N. Saraswathi and Ors would go to show that one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, when attesting witnesses are not available, u/s. 69 of the Indian Evidence Act the witnesses who knows the handwriting of the attesters should have been examined for the proof of attestation cannot be ignored. Therefore, in order to give opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence on the points referred above it has become necessary to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court and to remand the case to the lower court for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence on either side. Therefore, this court has not opted to give findings on anyone of the crucial issues except receipt of additional evidence. Therefore, this court has not opted to give findings on anyone of the crucial issues except receipt of additional evidence. Accordingly, all the points framed above except the case of additional evidence are left open to be decided by the lower court after recording fresh evidence. Points 1,2,6,8 and 10: For the foregoing discussion in the previous points this court is not opting to find all the issues except the point of reception of additional papers and left all the points to be decided by the lower court after recording evidence and for the purpose of facilitating the lower court, the judgment and decree of the lower court are set aside and the case is remanded back to the lower court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving notice to all the parties. While arraying the parties the respondents 2 and 3 are to be recorded as legal representatives of the plaintiff and the respondents 4 and 5 are to be arrayed as defendants 2 and 3 in order to facilitate them to file their pleadings and in case the respondents 4 and 5 are found to be the legatees of the deceased plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to any such decree, accordingly, the lower court has to pass order in favour of such parties. With the aforesaid direction the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower court are set aside and the case is remanded back to the lower court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. With aforesaid directions mentioned in the judgment the lower court is directed to issue notice to both parties regarding the date of listing the case before the lower court and to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of records or judgment whichever is later. No costs. Court fee is directed to be refunded to the appellant.