Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 25 (HP)

Kishan v. Smt. Tulki Devi H. P.

2013-01-04

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in civil appeal No.42 of 1995 whereby on reversal of the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1995 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No.121 of 1990, holding the will Ex.DW-1/A as illegal and invalid being shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the will Ex.PW-2/A executed in favour of plaintiff No.2 as legal and valid, declared plaintiff No.2, Smt. Tulki to be the sole owner in possession of the suit land entered in khata/khatauni No.31/51, khasra No.5, measuring 4-16-2 bighas situated in Mohal Tikri-40, Tehsil Chachiot to the exclusion of appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’ for convenience sake) and as regards the remaining land of deceased, Kundan, Predecessor-in-interest of the parties in Mohal Sari, it is ordered that natural succession shall follow and the plaintiff and defendants shall inherit the same in accordance with law. 2. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree has been questioned on the ground, inter alia, that learned lower appellate Court has erroneously concluded that the will Ex.DW-1/A was not valid, particularly, when the earlier two wills Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/A stand revoked thereby, the same was the only last will executed in a most equitable manner by the testator to bequeath his property in favour of his two sons (plaintiff No.1 and defendant) in equal shares. The findings that the will Ex.DW-1/A is not proved to be validly executed as per requirement of the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and that blank papers were used to get the same scribed, are stated to be absolutely wrong and based on surmises and conjectures. 3. The appeal has been admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the circumstances relied upon by the learned first appellate court can be termed as suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will dated 16.2.1990 Ex.DW.1/A?” 4. Before coming to adjudication of the only substantial question of law arising for determination in this appeal, it is desirable to take note of the facts briefly borne out from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced in the trial Court. 5. Defendant is step-brother of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 is mother of plaintiff No.1, whereas, stepmother of defendant. 5. Defendant is step-brother of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 is mother of plaintiff No.1, whereas, stepmother of defendant. The property in dispute is the estate of Kundan, their Predecessor-in-interest. The property of deceased Kundan is situated in two different Mohals, i.e. Tikri and Sari, Illaqua Movi, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi. Plaintiffs had set-up will dated 5.2.1988 Ex.PW-2/A, allegedly executed in favour of plaintiff No.2 in the presence of Sh. Luhari (PW-5) and Shri Mohan, the attesting witnesses and scribed by Shri J.L. Sharma, Petition Writer, Chachiot bequeathing thereby the suit land comprised in khata/khatauni No.31/51, khasra No.5, measuring 4-16-2 bighas situate in Mohal Tikri, Tehsil Chachiot in her favour and the will Ex.PW-1/A dated 15.12.1989 in the presence of Shri Devi Chand (PW-4) and one Shri Puran Chand, reduced into writing by Shri G.L. Sharma, Petition Writer, Chachiot, bequeathing thereby his entire moveable and immoveable property situate in Tehsil Chachiot in his favour. The plaintiffs have challenged the will Ex.DW-1/A, dated 16.2.1990 allegedly executed in favour of the defendant and his step-brother, plaintiff No.1 in the presence of witnesses S/Shri Hem Raj, Tara (DW-3) and Meenu and scribed by DW-2, Mahinder Kumar Pandit, Advocate on the ground of it being shrouded by suspicious circumstances and not a legal and valid document. 6. The case of the defendant, on the other hand, in a nutshell, is that the will Ex.DW-1/A is the last and final will of deceased Kundan and that the earlier two wills Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/A, he executed in favour of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 respectively stand revoked thereby. 7. On such pleadings, the trial Court has tried the parties on the following issues:- 1. Whether the deceased Kundan had executed valid will dated 5-2-1988 and 15-12-1989 qua the suit land in the favour of the plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2? OPP. 2. If the issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether wills are the result of misrepresentation? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no enforceable cause of action? OPD. 4. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 4A (1.3.95) Whether the deceased Kundan executed a valid will dated 16-2-1990 in favour of plaintiff No.1 and defendant? OPD. 5. Relief.” 8. OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no enforceable cause of action? OPD. 4. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 4A (1.3.95) Whether the deceased Kundan executed a valid will dated 16-2-1990 in favour of plaintiff No.1 and defendant? OPD. 5. Relief.” 8. On completion of trial, the trial Court has held the wills Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/A legally and validly executed documents, however, the same held to be revoked by the testator, deceased Kundan in his last will Ex.DW-1/A which was held a legal and valid document. The suit as such was dismissed. 9. As noticed at the very outset, learned District Judge has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and while arriving at a conclusion that wills Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.DW-1/A are not proved in accordance with law, up-held the will Ex.PW-2/A legally and validly executed and declared plaintiff No.2 to be the owner in possession of the suit land situate in Mohal Tikri, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi. It is this judgment and decree, which has been assailed in this Court, however, only by the defendant and not by plaintiff No.1, because the will Ex.PW-1/A, allegedly executed in his favour has also been held as legal and valid. 10. The controversy brought to this Court thus confines only to the question of legality and validity of the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court declaring the will Ex.DW-1/A allegedly being shrouded by suspicious circumstances, illegal and not validly executed and the will Ex.PW-2/A a legally proved document. 11. Learned lower appellate Court after taking note of the provisions contained under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act has taken note of the following conditions required to be satisfied for inception of a valid will:- (i) The will must be attested by atleast two witnesses. (ii) Each of these – (a) must either see the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or must see some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or (b) must receive from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark or of the signature of such other person. (iii) Each of these must sign the will. (iv) They must sign in the presence of the testator. 12. (iii) Each of these must sign the will. (iv) They must sign in the presence of the testator. 12. If coming to the legal position, the view taken by the Apex Court in Lalita Ben Jayantilal Popat Vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others, (2008) 15 SCC 365 qua this aspect of the matter reads as follows:- “11. The law in regard to proof of a valid Will is now well settled. It has to be proved not only by proving the signature of the executor but it should be found to be free from any suspicious circumstances. Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act reads as under: "Section 63.--Execution of unprivileged Wills--Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 1 [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules :- (a) and (b) ... (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." Indisputably, the said provision is mandatory in nature. A Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that the propounder must prove execution and attestation of the Will by examining at least one of the attesting witnesses. A Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that the propounder must prove execution and attestation of the Will by examining at least one of the attesting witnesses. What is meant by the word ‘attestation' is defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as under: Section 3.--Interpretation-clause--In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,- * * * * * "attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." 13. What constitutes suspicious circumstances, is discussed again by the Apex Court in Bharpur Singh and others Vs. Shamsher Singh, (2009) 3 SCC 687 holding that when a Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances, it cannot be treated as the last testamentary disposition of the testator. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “22. We may notice that in Jaswant Kaur vs. Amrit Kaur & ors. [ (1977) 1 SCC 369 ] this Court pointed out that when the Will is allegedly shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and defendant. An adversarial proceeding in such cases becomes a matter of Court's conscience and propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances to satisfy that Will was duly executed by testator wherefor cogent and convincing explanation of suspicious circumstances shrouding the making of Will must be offered. 17. Suspicious circumstances like the following may be found to be surrounded in the execution of the Will: i. The signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful or not appear to be his usual signature. ii. 17. Suspicious circumstances like the following may be found to be surrounded in the execution of the Will: i. The signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful or not appear to be his usual signature. ii. The condition of the testator's mind may be very feeble and debilitated at the relevant time. iii. The disposition may be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances like exclusion of or absence of adequate provisions for the natural heirs without any reason. iv. The dispositions may not appear to be the result of the testator's free will and mind. v. The propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will. vi. The testator used to sign blank papers. vii. The Will did not see the light of the day for long. viii. Incorrect recitals of essential facts.” 14. The onus to prove the will is always on the propounder. It is held so again by the Apex Court in K. LaxmananVs. Thekkayil Padmini and others, (2009) 1 SCC 354 . This judgment also reads as follows:- “19. When there are suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the Will, the onus is also on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court and only when such responsibility is discharged, the court would accept the will as genuine. Even where there are no such pleas, but circumstances give rise to doubt, it is on the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. Suspicious circumstances arise due to several reasons such as with regard to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the conditions of the testator’s mind, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indications in the will to show that the testator’s mind was not free. In such a case, the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the lat will of the testator. The aforesaid view is taken by us in consonance with the decision of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee and Pushpavathi v. Chandraraja Kadamba.” 15. It being a case of reversal of trial Court judgment in appeal by learned lower appellate Court, the point in issue needs adjudication with the help of evidence available on record. The aforesaid view is taken by us in consonance with the decision of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee and Pushpavathi v. Chandraraja Kadamba.” 15. It being a case of reversal of trial Court judgment in appeal by learned lower appellate Court, the point in issue needs adjudication with the help of evidence available on record. Having gone through the entire evidence produced by the defendant to prove will Ex.DW-1/A and the evidence available on record, it is apparent from the solitary version of DW-3 Tara, one of the attesting witnesses that the scribe thereof Mr. M.K. Pandit, Advocate, DW-2 after reducing this document into writing had read over its contents to the testator deceased Kundan and it is thereafter said Shri Kundan thumb marked the same and thereafter they had put their signatures thereon. It is seen that nothing has come in the statement of DW-3 that he and other attesting witness had seen the testator, Kundan putting thumb mark on will Ex.DW-1/A after admitting its contents to be true and correct, even if it is believed that its contents were read over and explained to him by the scribe DW-2. Nothing has also come in the statement of this witness that the testator had also seen him and other attesting witness while putting their signatures on this document. Not only this, but as per his version, it was not read over and explained by the scribe DW-2 that two wills executed by the testator Shri Kundan earlier, were revoked by will Ex.DW-1/A. The other discrepancies such as the scribe was already present when he reached in the house of testator and that it is only the family members of the testator who were present at that time and from the village only, three persons were present, also are found on the face of record for the reason that as per the version of scribe DW-2 around 15-20 persons were present when he reached there. No doubt, the scribe DW-2 had stated that the testator had thumb marked the will Ex.DW-1/A after admitting its contents to be true and correct and that it is thereafter that the three attesting witnesses had signed the same. His version to the extent of the contents of Ex. DW-1/A were admitted to be correct by the testator is contrary to that of the attesting witness Shri Tara (DW-3). His version to the extent of the contents of Ex. DW-1/A were admitted to be correct by the testator is contrary to that of the attesting witness Shri Tara (DW-3). Not only this, the scribe DW-2 has also not stated that he or the attesting witnesses had seen the testator while putting his thumb impression on this document and that the testator had also seen the attesting witnesses when they were putting their signatures thereon. 16. Interestingly, the scribe is none else, but an Advocate and he had been representing the defendant in this case before the trial Court till the stage of recording of evidence. This itself speaks in plenty qua the genuineness and authenticity of this document, particularly, when the scribe is the person who has defended the case of defendant in the trial Court. No doubt, the legal requirement is that at least one marginal witness should be examined, however, in this case in a situation when the another marginal witness stepped in the witness box as DW-4 and in the mid of recording of his statement he was given up, also raises suspicion qua the manner in which this document is executed. 17. It is interesting to note that as per the statement made by the scribe, DW-2 and one of the attesting witnesses, Shri Tara (DW-3), in the sequence, as per their version, the will was first signed/thumb marked by the testator, the thumb mark of the testator should have been close to the text matter/contents of the document. However, his thumb impression is in the end of the last page of this document, whereas, the thumb mark/signatures of the attesting witnesses are immediately below where its contents ends. The possibility of the blank papers having been got thumb marked from the testator by the defendant, cannot be ruled out. While taking this view, reliance can be placed on Ex.PW-2/B, a compromise arrived at in police station where plaintiff No.2 had lodged a complaint against the defendant that he had got thumb marked certain blank papers from the testator about which it is the testator who himself told her. While taking this view, reliance can be placed on Ex.PW-2/B, a compromise arrived at in police station where plaintiff No.2 had lodged a complaint against the defendant that he had got thumb marked certain blank papers from the testator about which it is the testator who himself told her. Ex.PW-2/B reveals that the defendant though had denied having got thumb marked any blank paper from his father, the testator, however, undertaken that even if any such paper is found to be available with him, that will not be valid nor will he be entitled to claim any legal right on the basis thereof. The date of execution of DW-1/A is 16.2.1990, whereas, the death of the testator after few days thereof i.e. on 26.2.1990 leads to the only conclusion that the deceased was not in sound disposing mind nor in a position to execute such a document while on death bed and at the fag end of his life. It is so when no legal and acceptable evidence, i.e. medical evidence etc. showing the sound disposing state of mind of the testator is produced by the defendant. 18. Above all, it is a circumstance, which shows that Ex.DW-1/A is not a legal and valid document and on the asis thereof the defendant and plaintiff No.1 are not entitled to inherit the property of deceased Kundan. 19. It is also significant to note that the propounder himself had accompanied the scribe DW-2, Shri M.K. Pandit, Advocate from Chail Chowk to his native place. As per DW-3, he was also called there by the propounder, i.e. defendant. Not only this, at one point of time, defendant while in the witness box had stated that the will was reduced into writing on his dictation, however, in the same breath corrected himself that the same was scribed at the instance of his father, deceased Kundan. The propounder taking an active part in the execution of the will itself is also a suspicious circumstance and render this document invalid. 20. The propounder taking an active part in the execution of the will itself is also a suspicious circumstance and render this document invalid. 20. Although specific challenge is not to the findings that the will Ex.PW-2/A is legal and valid, yet, in view of the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court vide which will Ex.PW-2/A has been held to legal and valid and the only will of deceased Kundan, is under challenge in the present lis, this Court deem it proper to adjudicate the question of genuineness and authenticity of this document also. 21. The only witness examined to prove this document, is Shri Luhari (PW-5). He has no where stated that deceased Kundan, the testator had admitted the contents of this document as true and correct when read over and explained to him by the petition writer and that it is thereafter, he thumb marked the same and he as well as other attesting witness Shri Mohan had seen the testator putting his thumb impression thereon. It has also not come in the statement of this witness that the testator had seen him and the other attesting witness, Shri Mohan while putting their signatures on this document. When this document was produced before Sub-Registrar (Tehsildar), Chachiot for attestation, whether the Sub-Registrar also read over and explained the contents thereof to the testator or not, this witness tells us nothing in this behalf save and except that after being asked by Sub-Registrar, he thumb marked the same at three places. Thereafter he as well as Shri Mohan also signed this document. If his cross-examination is seen, his brother being ‘samdi’ of plaintiff No.2, he is in her relation. No doubt, he tells us that at the time of execution of will Ex.PW-2/A, defendant had been residing separately from deceased Kundan, however, documents mark ‘D-1’ and mark ‘D-2’ reveal that it is not the defendant, but plaintiff No.2 had been residing separately from deceased Kundan, who as per these documents used to reside with the defendant. No doubt, he tells us that at the time of execution of will Ex.PW-2/A, defendant had been residing separately from deceased Kundan, however, documents mark ‘D-1’ and mark ‘D-2’ reveal that it is not the defendant, but plaintiff No.2 had been residing separately from deceased Kundan, who as per these documents used to reside with the defendant. No doubt these documents being not exhibited, may be for want of original record, as otherwise, PW-6 Shri Prem Singh, who at the relevant time was Ward Panch and made an endorsement on document mark ‘D-1 that Smt. Tulki used to reside separately from her husband, deceased Kundan, whereas on the application mark ‘D-2 that the applicant, deceased Kundan used to reside separately from his family for the last one year, while in the witness box, no doubt, has denied that deceased Kundan was living separately from Tulki (plaintiff No.2), however, in the same breath admits that the application mark ‘D-1’ she submitted to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, whereas application mark ‘D-2’ by her husband deceased Kundan with a request to enter her name with the children born out of her wedlock with deceased Kundan in the Pariwar Register separately from said Shri Kundan allegedly residing separately contains the endorsement that plaintiff Tulki was residing separately from deceased Kundan and that in the Pariwar Register, she was recommended to be entered separately from her husband, under his signature. 22. True it is that applications mark ‘D-1’ and ‘D-2’ seem to be made just to show plaintiff Tulki separate in Panchayat record from her husband, deceased Kundan for the reasons best known to them, however, in view of the statement of PW-6, Prem Singh supra, some weightage has to be given to the contents thereof, which reveal that deceased Kundan was living with defendant and not with plaintiff, Tulki. If it is so, the claim of the plaintiff that the will Ex.PW-2/A was voluntarily executed by Kundan in favour of plaintiff No.2, is rendered doubtful. No doubt, will Ex. If it is so, the claim of the plaintiff that the will Ex.PW-2/A was voluntarily executed by Kundan in favour of plaintiff No.2, is rendered doubtful. No doubt, will Ex. PW-1/A which was set up by plaintiff No.1, though not proved to be legally and validly executed, as not only concluded by the trial Court, but also by the learned lower appellate Court, however, the fact remains that had this document been reduced into writing on 15.12.1989 i.e. subsequent to will Ex.PW-2/A, which is dated 5.2.1988 now held to be legal and valid by learned lower appellate Court, would have find mention in the subsequent will i.e. Ex.PW-1/A. In this document there is, however, no reference of the will Ex.PW-2/A and rather the testator allegedly bequeathed thereafter his entire moveable and immoveable property in Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi in favour of plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 are son and mother respectively, in relation. Above all, both wills, i.e. Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/A have been reduced into writing by Shri G.L. Sharma, Documents Writer, Chachiot, District Mandi. Had the will Ex.PW-2/A qua alienation of the suit land situated in Mohal Tikri in favour of plaintiff No.2 been executed by deceased Kundan, it can reasonably be believed that plaintiff No.1 would have been in the knowledge thereof and a reference thereof been made in the will Ex.PW-1/A either in the context of revocation thereof or alienation of the property of the deceased situated in Mohal Tikri and that subsequent will Ex. PW-1/A confined only to the left out property of the deceased in Mohal Sari. It seems that will Ex.PW-2/A was never executed in the manner as claimed by the plaintiff. In order to remove every doubt qua its execution, the scribe Shri G.L. Sharma, Documents Writer, Chachiot should have been examined. He, however, has not been produced as witness in evidence. The solitary statement of one of the attesting witness, PW-5 Shri Luhari is not sufficient to discharge the onus on the plaintiffs to prove that will Ex.PW-2/A is a legally and validly executed document. 23. He, however, has not been produced as witness in evidence. The solitary statement of one of the attesting witness, PW-5 Shri Luhari is not sufficient to discharge the onus on the plaintiffs to prove that will Ex.PW-2/A is a legally and validly executed document. 23. No doubt, the propounder Smt. Tulki, plaintiff No.2 has also stepped in the witness box as PW-2, however, qua this aspect of the matter only tells us that vide this document her husband had given about 5 bighas of his land exclusively to her and the left out land was given to her son Tek Chand, plaintiff No.1 by way of a separate will executed subsequently. As noticed supra, by way of so called subsequent will Ex.PW-1/A deceased testator however allegedly alienated his entire land situated in Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi and not only the left out land. As per her version, the scribe of both the wills was Girdhari Lal (must be Shri G.L. Sharma, Documents Writer, Chachiot). When one will Ex.PW-1/A reduced into writing by said Shri Girdhari Lal is not found to be proved legally and rather shrouded by suspicious circumstances, the will Ex.PW-2/A in my opinion cannot also be termed as a legal and valid document and rather shrouded by suspicious circumstances. 24. The present, in the peculiar circumstances when the two wills, i.e. Ex.PW-1/A and DW-1/A have not been found to be duly proved being shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the 3rd one, i.e. Ex.PW-2/A though held to be legally and validly executed document by learned lower appellate Court, however, this Court is not in agreement with the findings so recorded, to my mind is a case where each and every one, i.e. the plaintiffs and defendant (near and dear to deceased Kundan) with a view to grab his property propounded forged and fictitious wills allegedly executed in their favour. Not only this, but mutation Ex.DW-2/A of the landed property left behind by deceased Kundan also came to be sanctioned and attested in favour of defendant and plaintiff No.1 pursuant to will Ex.DW-1/A, which has been held to be illegal and invalid by learned lower appellate Court and such findings affirmed by this Court also. 25. Not only this, but mutation Ex.DW-2/A of the landed property left behind by deceased Kundan also came to be sanctioned and attested in favour of defendant and plaintiff No.1 pursuant to will Ex.DW-1/A, which has been held to be illegal and invalid by learned lower appellate Court and such findings affirmed by this Court also. 25. This Court thus concludes that deceased Kundan never executed any will during his life time either in favour of plaintiffs or defendant and rather left the same to be inherited by his legal heirs in open succession in accordance with law. The suit in such a situation deserves dismissal as a whole and the judgment and decree to the extent of holding the will Ex.PW-2/A a legally and validly executed document and accordingly decreeing the suit partly also deserves to be quashed and set aside, whereas, the findings that the will Ex.DW-1/A is not proved to be a legally and validly executed document deserve to be affirmed. 26. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court to the extent of holding the will Ex.DW-1/A not proved in accordance with law are hereby affirmed and those holding the will Ex.PW-2/A, a document executed legally and validly, are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the succession qua the property left behind by deceased Kundan in Mohal Tikri and Sari, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi shall be open in favour of his all heirs in accordance with law. As a result, the suit shall stand dismissed as a whole. 27. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also shall stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.