Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1103 (KER)

Kuriakose v. Varkey

2017-08-02

K.RAMAKRISHNAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Defendant in O.S.124/1984 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha is the appellant herein. The suit was originally filed for injunction and subsequently amended for declaration of title and possession and injunction and later after remanded by the appellate court earlier, amended for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint was that, the plaint schedule property belonged to the original first plaintiff, who is the mother of the second plaintiff, who got the same as per Ext.A1 partition deed No.612/1922. The plaint schedule along with other portions having an extent of 501/2 cents on the northern side was allotted to the first plaintiff as B schedule to the partition deed and the remaining 501/2 cents on the southern side was allotted to be share of first plaintiff's sister Aley, who is the mother of the defendant as C schedule to the document. The total extent of the property so allotted was having an extent of one acre and one cent comprised in Survey No.778/15. While so, first plaintiff and Aley sold 83 cents of property out of the said one acre and one cent, excluding 18 cents belonged to the first plaintiff to Thiruvalla Catholic Diocese as per Ext.A4 sale deed No.3010/1115 M.E. The remaining portion was with the first plaintiff after the sale and that portion was shown as plaint schedule property in the plaint. It was demarcated with well defined boundaries and defendant is having properties on the southern and western side of the plaint schedule property. They were old boundaries separating the plaintiff's property with the defendant's properties. The southern side property of the defendant is lying on a lower level than the plaint schedule property and the western side property is separated by a water channel, on the northern side there is a compound wall and on the eastern side there is a thondu as boundaries. Plaintiffs had stored some rubles and soil. While so, the defendant expressed his willingness to purchase the plaint schedule property, for which they were not amenable. Thereafter they were on logger heads as well. Plaintiffs had stored some rubles and soil. While so, the defendant expressed his willingness to purchase the plaint schedule property, for which they were not amenable. Thereafter they were on logger heads as well. While so on 17.03.1984 the defendant cut one teak tree from the plaint schedule property without the consent of the plaintiffs and made hasty attempts to trespass into the plaint schedule property and reduce the same into his possession, that prompted them to file the suit. 2. The defendant filed written statement and additional written statements on 27.08.1984, 17.08.1985 and 17.03.1989 respectively contending as follows : The suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. Plaintiffs have never been in possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendant and his predecessor are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from 1097 M.E. onwards. The first plaintiff sold her entire property to Thiruvalla Catholic Diosces as per sale deed No.30.10.1115 M.E. Even at the time of executing the document of partition deed No.614/1922, the plaint schedule property was lying contiguous with the western property in survey No.778/12 AB, 778/14 and 778/13 within a common boundary. It was not demarcated with well defined boundaries as alleged by the plaintiffs. The property of the defendant and the plaint schedule property are lying contiguously as a single plot within well defined boundaries. The extent of the property shown as 18 cents is not correct. It will be more than 50 cents. There is no water channel on the western side of the plaint schedule property as alleged by the plaintiffs. It was a small thodu in the property of the defendant created for the purpose of flow of natural water through it. There was no separate boundary wall on the northern side of the plaint schedule property, but it forms part in continuation of the compound wall put up by the defendant on the northern side of his residential property. Plaintiffs have not stored any building materials in the property. It was stored by the defendant. When 11 K.V., electric line was drawn through the plaint schedule property, notice was issued by the Electricity Board to the mother of the defendant and the compensation was obtained by her. It was not objected by the plaintiffs. The allegation that he expressed his willingness to purchase the property is not correct. It was stored by the defendant. When 11 K.V., electric line was drawn through the plaint schedule property, notice was issued by the Electricity Board to the mother of the defendant and the compensation was obtained by her. It was not objected by the plaintiffs. The allegation that he expressed his willingness to purchase the property is not correct. There was no necessity for such demand being made from the side of the defendant. Further the property has been in possession of the defendant and his predecessors, since 1097 M.E., openly, continuously, uninterruptedly and it is being used as the property of the defendant and his predecessor for more than 50 years and thereby the right if any of the plaintiff is lost by adverse possession of limitation and the plaintiff is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed and he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Originally on the basis of the pleadings, following issues and additional issues were framed by the trial court. i. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property? ii. Whether the injunction is allowable? iii. Reliefs and cost? Additional issues raised: iv. Whether the plaintiffs have title over any portion of the plaint schedule property? v. Whether the declaration prayed for his allowable? 4. During the pendency of the suit, the original first plaintiff died and second plaintiff was recorded and the additional plaintiffs 3 to 10 were impleaded as legal heirs of the original first plaintiff. 5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 and Exts.C1, C1(a), C2, C2(a) and C3, C3 (a), C4, C4(a) were marked. On the side of the defendants DWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.B1 to B8 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, originally by judgment dated 25.11.1989, the trial court found that the plaintiffs have title to plaint schedule property having an extent of 18 cents shown by the commissioner in Ext.C3(a) plan in violet shaded portion and C4(a) plan in red shaded portion, but they have failed to prove possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the injunction as prayed for and dismissed the suit. 6. 6. Aggrieved by the same plaintiffs filed A.S.80/1990 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha and during the pendency of the appeal the plaintiffs filed I.A.521/1990 for amendment of the plaint seeking in the alternate, a prayer for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title if it is found that the defendant is in possession of the property. The appellate court allowed the amendment and in view of the amendment, the appellate court found that the matter has to be remitted to the court below enabling the trial court to frame additional issues as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of recovery of possession on the strength of title and also the right if any of the plaintiff is barred by adverse possession and limitation and allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the court below and remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law, giving liberty for the parties to adduce further evidence in this regard. 7. After remand no further evidence was adduced on either side, except filing an additional written statement by the defendant, reiterating his contention that the right if any of the plaintiff is lost by adverse possession and limitation. After re-appreciation of evidence on the basis of the amendment and directions in the remand order, the trial court found that, plaintiffs have established their title over the plaint schedule property and the evidence adduced on the side of the defendant is not sufficient to hold that the right of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property is lost by adverse possession and limitation and decreed the suit for recovery of possession of 18 cents of land identified by the commissioner in Ext.C1(a) plan on the strength of title. The defendant filed A.S.No.41/1992 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha against the decree and judgment passed by the Munsiff Court and the Sub Judge by the impugned judgment confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the court below and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed. 8. During the pendency of the appeal, second respondent died and additional respondents 10 to 14 were impleaded as her legal heirs as per order in I.A.No.13100/2006. Third respondent also died and respondents 4 to 7 were recorded as her legal heirs as per order in I.A.No.429/2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed. 8. During the pendency of the appeal, second respondent died and additional respondents 10 to 14 were impleaded as her legal heirs as per order in I.A.No.13100/2006. Third respondent also died and respondents 4 to 7 were recorded as her legal heirs as per order in I.A.No.429/2009. 9th respondent died and additional respondents 15 to 20 were impleaded as legal representatives of 9th respondent as per order in I.A.No.428/2009. First respondent also died and respondents 5 and 6 were recorded and additional respondents 21 to 24 were impleaded as the legal heirs of first respondent as per order in I.A.No.2059/2010. While admitting the appeal the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum have been treated as substantial question of law raised for the purpose of this appeal, which reads as follows: i. Is not the finding that the original plaintiff had title to the plaint schedule property the result of gross non advertance or the mis reading of documents of title Ext.A1, A6 and A5 without adverting to the significance of Ext.A1, A4, A5 and A6? ii. Has not title to entire property including the plaint schedule property on the west of the Ext.A4 property been obtained by the predecessor in interest of the defendant and after her the defendant by virtue of Exts.A6 gift deed and A5 sale deed? iii. Whether the courts below are justified in finding plaintiffs title merely on the basis of survey Number as against the more relevant descriptions such as boundaries and location of properties, etc. contained in Exts.A6 and A5? iv. Whether the finding that defendant has not succeeded in proving prescription of title by adverse possession sustainable? v. Is not long possession of the defendant as title holder hostile to the title of the plaintiff even assuming that the plaintiff had title earlier and will not such possession for 12 years enable the defendant to prescribe title by prescription and to bar suit by the plaintiff for recovery of possession by limitation? vi. Whether the courts below are justified in not properly appreciating or considering the evidence adduced by the defendant, documentary and oral which would prove acts of ownership by the defendant over the suit property for the statutory period? 9. Heard Sri. P.G. Parameswara Panicker, Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. vi. Whether the courts below are justified in not properly appreciating or considering the evidence adduced by the defendant, documentary and oral which would prove acts of ownership by the defendant over the suit property for the statutory period? 9. Heard Sri. P.G. Parameswara Panicker, Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. The counsel for the appellant submitted that, earlier the trial court on the basis of evidence found that, plaintiffs were not in possession of the property since long time and plaintiff is not even able to identify the property and as such they are not entitled to get any relief. But subsequently when the plaint was amended for recovery of possession on the strength of title, no fresh evidence was adduced and the courts below have taken a different view and found that plaintiff has got title over the property. Further the evidence adduced on the side of the defendant will go to show that though the property was allotted as per Ext.A1 partition deed, it was not measured and at the time when Ext.A4 sale deed was executed in favour of the diocese, first plaintiff was aware of the fact that she was only in possession of the 321/2 cents and it was that portion that was sold to the diocese. Further as per Ext.A6, the remaining property belonging to her was gifted. Merely because this property is in survey No.778/15, it will be seen from the commissioner's report that it is lying as a compact plot with the properties in the possession of the defendant and as such the courts below ought to have held that the right if any of the plaintiff has been lost by adverse possession and limitation and should have dismissed the suit. Further it is not necessary that, true owner of the property must know that the hostile intention and if the circumstances will indicate that she was aware of the fact, then that will sufficient to prove hostile animus on the part of the person in possession of the property to compute limitation to deny relief to the plaintiff. Learned counsel has relied on the decisions reported in Chatti Konati Rao and Others v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao (2010) 14 SCC 316 ) and Thomas v. Lonappan (2016 (4) KLT 637) in support of his case. Learned counsel has relied on the decisions reported in Chatti Konati Rao and Others v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao (2010) 14 SCC 316 ) and Thomas v. Lonappan (2016 (4) KLT 637) in support of his case. He had also argued that even assuming that the defendant is not able to prove adverse possession, the evidence will go to show that he is claiming title over the property as they have been in possession of the property from 1097 M.E. onwards. This aspect has not been considered by the courts below. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, the documents produced will go to show that 18 cents of land has been excluded which is shown as plaint schedule property which was part of the property allotted to first plaintiff as per Ext.A1 partition deed. There is categorical admission of that right in the subsequent documents executed by the mother of the first defendant and this property has not been included in any of the documents relied on by the defendant as well. Further the evidence of PW1 will go to show that when 11 K.V. electric line was drawn through the plaint schedule property, the mother of the defendant had approached her sister who is the first plaintiff and she did not object the same and she was not interested in getting the amount as well and that was how the amount was received by the mother of the defendant and as such it cannot be treated as an act of adverse possession. Further when the dispute arose between the parties regarding the property, a suit has been filed and as such there is no animus to possess the property, hostile to the true owner to her knowledge so as to claim adverse possession and the courts below were perfectly justified in decreeing the suit. He had relied on the decisions reported in Mohini v. Thimmappa ( 2015 (4) KLT 759 ); Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (Dead) by LRs. v. O.V. Narasimha Setty and Others (2007) 3 (SCC) 569 ); P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others v. Revamma and Others (2007) 6 SCC 59 ); Nair Service Society Ltd., v. K.C. Alexander and Others ( AIR 1968 (SC) 1165 ); Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi (Dead) By LRs. and Another (2016 KHC 6656) in support of his case. 12. v. O.V. Narasimha Setty and Others (2007) 3 (SCC) 569 ); P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others v. Revamma and Others (2007) 6 SCC 59 ); Nair Service Society Ltd., v. K.C. Alexander and Others ( AIR 1968 (SC) 1165 ); Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi (Dead) By LRs. and Another (2016 KHC 6656) in support of his case. 12. It is an admitted fact that the plaint schedule property having an extent of 18 cents was part of 501/2 cents of land allotted to the first plaintiff as per Ext.A1 partition deed. It is clear from the recitals in Ext.A1 partition deed that, the property having an extent of one acre and one cent comprised in survey No.778/15 was divided among the first plaintiff and her sister Aley, who is the mother of the defendant, and 501/2 cents on the northern side was allotted to the share of the first plaintiff and 501/2 cents on the southern side was allotted to the share of the mother of the defendant namely Aley. It is also in away admitted that the property on the southern side of this property was allotted to the share of the mother of the defendant, apart from this property, and they were in different survey numbers. It is also in away admitted that the entire property allotted to the defendant's mother namely 501/2 cents of land and 321/2 cents belonging to the first plaintiff totalling an extent of 83 cents comprised in survey No.778/15 was sold by first plaintiff and her sister Aley jointly to Thiruvalla Diocese as per Ext.A4 document. It was clearly mentioned in that document that, the property was sold excluding 18 cents of land on the northern side which is part of the property allotted to the first plaintiff as per Ext.A1 partition deed. 13. The case of the defendant was that, the first plaintiff was aware of the fact that even at the time when the partition was effected, 18 cents was not given to her and it was enjoyed by the defendant's mother as part of the property allotted to her and that was the reason why it was excluded, but there was no such recital mentioned in Ext.A4. Further in Ext.A6 gift deed executed by first plaintiff in favour of her sister Aley, she had gifted certain properties, in which also this property was not included and the survey number of this property was not shown in that document as well. There also the title to the property was traced on the basis of Ext.A1 partition deed. If really 18 cents of land now shown as plaint schedule was out of possession of the first plaintiff and it has become part of the property allotted to the defendant's mother as per Ext.A1 partition deed, then that would have been made mention of in this document. Since defendant's mother being a party to the document, she is estopped from contending that so much property was not allotted to the share of the first plaintiff and she has been in possession of excess area and unless there is concrete evidence adduced on that aspect, such a contention cannot be accepted. Further in Ext.A5 sale deed executed by Aley in favour of the defendant in respect of the property belonged to her, there was nothing mentioned about this property. If really, she was in possession of this property also from 1097 M.E. as claimed by the defendant, then that would have been made mention in the document and that survey number also would have been added in the property assigned by her, but that was not done in this case. Further the evidence of DW1 is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that 18 cents of land was left out from the allotment of the first plaintiff and it was added to the property allotted to his mother in Ext.A1 partition deed as he could not have any direct knowledge about the same as well. Further in Ext.A2 deposition given by him in a criminal case in respect of the alleged trespass into the property, he had admitted that first plaintiff is having 18 cents of land on the northern side of the property in their possession and this was confronted to him when he was examined as DW1. Further in Ext.C1(a) plan, the violet shaded portion on the western side of the orange shaded portion was identified as the plaint schedule property having an extent of 18 cents. Further in Ext.C1(a) plan, the violet shaded portion on the western side of the orange shaded portion was identified as the plaint schedule property having an extent of 18 cents. The orange shaded portion in Ext.C1(a) was the property assigned by Aley and first plaintiff in favour of Thiruvalla Diocese as per Ext.A4 assignment deed. There was no serious objection filed to the commissioner's report, regarding the identity of the property. The same has been further identified in Ext.C4(a) plan as well, which is shown as red shaded portion. Further it will be seen from the commissioner's report that, there is a mud wall separating the defendants property in survey No.778/14 on the southern side and that portion is lying in a lower level than the plaint schedule property. Though the commissioner's report shows that these properties were lying as a compact plot, it is brought out in evidence that the compound wall constructed on the northern side was having only an age of less than 12 years. It was assessed by the commissioner as between 10 to 12 years. So under such circumstances, the courts below were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved their title over plaint schedule property and it has been properly identified in Ext.C1(a) plan in violet shaded portion by the commissioner and in fact there was no dispute regarding this fact as well. So the concurrent finding of the courts below on this aspect do not call for any interference. 14. The case of the defendant was of two fold that, even at the time when the partition was effected, possession of the property was not given and the first plaintiff was given only 321/2 cents and plaint schedule property was part of the property allotted to his mother and thereby she had title to the property which she later assigned to him as per Ext.A5 document in the year 1983. Further he had also a case that the right if any of the plaintiff has been lost by adverse possession and limitation. It is settled law that, claiming title in one self and claiming title by adverse possession will not go together and they are mutually exclusive and destructive to each other. Further he had also a case that the right if any of the plaintiff has been lost by adverse possession and limitation. It is settled law that, claiming title in one self and claiming title by adverse possession will not go together and they are mutually exclusive and destructive to each other. It is true that the defendant is entitled to take inconsistent pleas, but at the time of trial, he will have to stick on to one case. In this case, from the pleading as well as at the time of evidence, their case was that, the right if any of the plaintiff has been lost by adverse possession and limitation. In case where the plea of adverse possession is raised, then the title to the property at one point of time has to be admitted by the person claiming adverse possession with the person against whom such claim is made. Thereafter the burden is on the person claiming adverse possession to prove from when onwards the possession became adverse to the knowledge of the true owner. 15. Nec vi nec clam nec pricario is the basic principle for considering the question of adverse possession. That is person in possession has to establish that he has been in possession of the property openly, peacefully, uninterruptedly as owner of the property to the knowledge of the true owner for the considerable period provided by law. Only if these ingredients are proved by the person, then only it can be said that, he had prescribed title by adverse possession and the right of the owner will be extinguished as provided under Section 27 of the Limitation Act. 16. In the decision reported in Chatti Konati Rao and Others v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao (2010) 14 SCC 316 ), it has been observed that, it is well recognized proposition of law that mere possession however law does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession, the possession proved must be adequate in continuity in any extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession, the possession proved must be adequate in continuity in any extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title of adverse possession is that, such possession in denial of true owners title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile even though capable of being known to the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informed the real owner of the formers hostile action. 17. In the decision reported in Thomas v. Lonappan (2016 (4) KLT 637), relying on the decisions of the apex court in Sarangadeva Periya Matam and Another v. Ramaswami Goundar (dead) By LRs ( AIR 1966 (SC) 1603 ), it has been held that, the suit for declaration of tile over the property by adverse possession and limitation is not maintainable and it can be used only as a shield and not a sword cannot be said to be good law. 18. In the decision reported in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others v. Revamma and Others (2007) 6 SCC 59 ), the apex court has held that, in order to ascertain the openness and hostility, there must be positive intention to dispossess the owner. Intention to disposes is distinguished from intention to possess. Date of dispossession of the owner that is starting point of adverse possession is also important. Where in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title, the initial burden lies on the land owner to prove his title and possession and onus, then shifts to other party to prove title by adverse possession. The same view has been reiterated in the decision reported in Krishnamurthy S. Setlur(Dead) By LRs. v. O.V. Narasimha Setty and Others (2007) 3 SCC 569 ). 19. The dictum laid down in the decision reported in Mohini V. Thimmappa ( 2015 (4) KLT 759 ) that, a suit for declaration of title over property by adverse possession of limitation is not maintainable has been distinguished by another single judge in the decision reported in Thomas v. Lonappan (2016(4) KLT 637). 19. The dictum laid down in the decision reported in Mohini V. Thimmappa ( 2015 (4) KLT 759 ) that, a suit for declaration of title over property by adverse possession of limitation is not maintainable has been distinguished by another single judge in the decision reported in Thomas v. Lonappan (2016(4) KLT 637). Even in that case, it has been held that the person claiming adverse possession can use it as a shield and if that be the case, the question is as to whether the evidence adduced in this case is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the defendant has proved that he had perfected title over the plaint schedule property by adverse possession and limitation. So under such circumstances, this court do not feel that there is any conflict in this aspect in these two decisions and requires reconsideration by a larger bench. The single bench in Mohini's case has relied on the decision reported in Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala (2014) 1 SCC 669 ), that was also a case where plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of ownership of land on the basis of adverse possession and apex court in that decision held that such a suit is not maintainable. But on the facts of this case, that is not applicable as it is not a suit filed by the defendant for claiming title by adverse possession, but he is using it as a defence to protect his possession which he claims to be in possession for longer period adverse to the interest of the true owner so as to deny the relief of recovery of possession. 20. In the decision reported in Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi (Dead) By LRs and Another (2016 KHC 6656), it has been held that, when courts have considered the question on the basis of facts concurrently in favour of one party, then it cannot be upset by the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court has to consider the question as to whether there involves any substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 and if it is not made out, then court has to decide the case and it cannot be remanded for denova trial. That shows that, if the matter has been decided by the courts below on facts and there is no substantial question of law arises for consideration, then the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the court below cannot be interfered by the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 21. In this case, though the defendant had twin case that he had obtained title to the property on the basis of evidence, it cannot be said that he was able to establish that fact, especially when the party to the document cannot go behind the terms of the document and that can be possible only if the party to the document comes to the court and explains the deviation from the intention of parties in accordance with law. That has not been done in this case by examining the mother of the defendant. Further even going by the evidence, the dispute arose when a teak tree was cut and removed in the year 1984 and electric line was drawn in the year 1976 and compensation was paid for the trees cut evidenced by Ext.B1 proceedings. Plaintiffs have got an explanation for the same, as the amount was received as permitted by his mother when his sister came and told about the same. Even if the amount was received, then it can only be on the basis of the permission of the owner of the land. Further the suit was filed in the year 1984 itself. Further going by the commissioner's report also, the age of the compound wall was only 10 to 12 years old, but in the suit, it was filed within 12 years as well. So under such circumstances, even on facts, it cannot be said that the defendant had proved that he obtained title to the property as owner or in the alternate prescribed title by adverse possession and limitation as claimed by him as well. Even the evidence adduced on the side of the defendant will only go to show that he and his mother was in possession of the property, but that does not mean that, they are holding the property adverse to the interest of the true owner or to the knowledge of the true owner so as to claim the benefit of adverse possession and limitation. 22. 22. So under such circumstances, the courts below were perfectly justified on facts in coming to the conclusion that the defendant had failed to prove that he had acquired title to the property by adverse possession and limitation so as to deny the relief of recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff and rightly rejected the contention and decreed the suit. There is no substantial question of law arises for consideration in view of the discussions made above and the question of adverse possession is based on the evidence on facts produced before the court and both the courts have concurrently found that there is no sufficient evidence to establish extinguishment of title of the plaintiff by adverse possession and limitation as provided under Section 27 of the Limitation Act. So the appeal lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, second appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Considering the relationship between the parties, the parties are directed to bear the respective costs in the second appeal. Interim order of stay if any granted is hereby vacated. All interim applications are closed. Registry is directed to communicate the judgment to the concerned court, immediately.