JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the reversal judgment dated 28.06.2013 delivered in Title Appeal 08 of 2012 by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, West Tripura, Agartala. For purpose of hearing the appeal, the following substantial question was formulated by the order dated 08.08.2013: Whether the finding of the First appellate Court that the suit drain is outside the southern boundary of the purchased land of the defendants No. 1 to 4 has emerged from the misreading of the evidence or not? 2. For laying the perspective in order to understand the challenge based on the said substantial of law, the essential facts may be introduced at the outset. The plaintiff respondent instituted the suit being Title Suit 36 of 2010 fundamentally for declaration and mandatory injunction for directing the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 to remove the obstruction created by them in the suit drain. The said suit was instituted in the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division (Court no.1), Agartala, West Tripura. 3. The pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent is that the land shown in the schedule ‘A’ was purchased by the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and the father of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 from the defendant No.6 namely Manindra chandra Laskar, since deceased by the sale deed dated 14.08.1974 and got delivery of the possession thereof, immediately after the purchase. Schedule ‘B’, according to the plaintiff is a dwelling hut and the suit drain originally belonged to Smt. Uma Rani Chakraborty and that has been described in the schedule ‘C’ of the plaint. The said drain is comprised in Howrah sheet No. 1-4, old Khatian No. 534 Jer 535 and old plot No. 916 and 917. The said suit drain has also been described by the specific boundaries. 4. The plaintiffs’ case is that the suit drain is situated outside the purchased land of the predecessor of the appellant No. 1 and the suit drain was constructed by the original owner of ‘A’ schedule land, namely, Smt. Uma Rani Chakraborty for discharging of noxious and foul water from her dwelling house, as shown in the schedule ‘B’ of the plaint. The predecessor of the plaintiffs allowed the defendant No.1 and other purchasers who are also impleaded defendants to discharge the noxious and foul water from their dwelling house through the suit drain. 5. The defendant No. 1 in collusion with the defendants No.2 and 3 closed the suit drain without any authority causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and for closure of the drain the plaintiffs are left with no other passage to discharge the noxious and foul water from their dwelling house and at the same time, for closure of the drain, the noxious and foul water of the dwelling house of the plaintiff become stagnant sometime flows over the adjacent pathway causing inconvenience to the passersby. As the defendant No.1, in collusion with the defendants No. 2 and 3 has most wrongly and illegally closed the suit drain, the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 6 are the joint owners of the suit land and the plaintiffs are also entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 to remove the obstruction from the suit drain within such day, to be fixed by the Court. According to the plaintiffs, on 31.10.2001 they had noticed that the defendant No.1 closed the suit drain. However, further cause of action arose on 06.05.2010 when the order of the Deputy Collector and Magistrate dated 02.03.2010 was quashed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.3), West Tripura, Agartala by the order dated 06.05.2010 passed in Criminal Revision No. 5(1)/10. 6. By filing the written statement, the defendants No. 1,2 and 3 have denied that there was ever any dwelling house on the ‘B’ schedule land when the said land was purchased by the plaintiffs and there was no drain at all. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.6 had never any interest over the suit drain. According to the defendants, such drain did never exist. The plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are residing in the ‘B’ schedule land after constructing building since 1995. They have a sulabh type of latrine having no outlet. Many persons including the answering defendants are still having sulabh type of latrine without outlet. According to the defendants, such drain did never exist. The plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are residing in the ‘B’ schedule land after constructing building since 1995. They have a sulabh type of latrine having no outlet. Many persons including the answering defendants are still having sulabh type of latrine without outlet. Afterwards, the plaintiff No. 2 constructed a sanitary latrine and allowed the foul water with smell to pass through the house of the answering defendants against which they protested and finally a case was registered under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. in the court of the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Agartala. The plaintiff No. 2 secured a favourable order from the said court. Against the said order, the defendants No. 1 to 3 approached the court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala and by the order dated 06.05.2010 delivered in Criminal Revision No. 5(1) of 2010, the order passed by the Executive Magistrate allowing the plaintiffs particularly the plaintiff No. 2 to discharge the foul water through the suit drain was vacated. However, in para 8 of the said judgment dated 06.05.2010, it has been observed that the drain falls within the boundary of the defendants and the drain is not the pubic place. The Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura has observed as well that even if the blockage of the drain which is within the private place causes inconvenience to the people in general, provisions of Section 133 of the Cr.P.C cannot be invoked for the simple reason that obstruction is not caused in a public place. For those reasons, the order of the Executive Magistrate dated 02.03.2010 has been interfered with and set aside. The defendant has also pointed out in the written statement that in para 17 of the plaint it has been averred that a drain has been mentioned outside the southern boundary of the homestead land of the answering defendants. Thus, the plaintiffs have also admitted that there is no drain inside the house of the answering defendants. But in fact, it was proposed drain mentioned in the southern boundary which is 2 ft. in width. The path as mentioned is 7ft. wide. So, as the drain was not constructed, the actual path remained 9 ft. wide and the path is still 9 ft. But in fact, it was proposed drain mentioned in the southern boundary which is 2 ft. in width. The path as mentioned is 7ft. wide. So, as the drain was not constructed, the actual path remained 9 ft. wide and the path is still 9 ft. wide between the house of the answering defendants and the plaintiffs on the northern side of the path and house of Minati Laskar on the southern side of the path. Only the plaintiff no. 2 resided in the plot No. 4813 before shifting to plot No. 4785 after constructing the building. According to the defendants, from the averments of the plaintiff it appears that the alleged two drains were constructed by Smt. Uma Rani Chakraborty for discharging foul water from her house at the schedule ‘B’ land. Thus the predecessor of the defendants allowed the answering defendants to use the said suit drain etc. as stated by the plaintiffs, but those were squarely denied by the defendants. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the issues, inter alia: “(ii) Whether the suit drain described in schedule ‘C’ of the plaint is in existence, if so, whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the same? (iii) Whether the eastern end of the suit drain is closed by the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction directing the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 to remove the obstruction created by them inside the suit drain?” 8. On appreciation of the evidences, the trial Court has observed as under: “7. Issue No. (ii):- In this issue I have to decide whether the suit drain described in schedule ‘C’ of the plaint is in existence, if so, whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the same. In this respect, I am of the view that it is the plea of the plaintiffs that the suit drain belongs to them whereas it is the plea of the defendants No. 1 to 3 that the suit drain is their private drain. Therefore, in my view, it is admitted fact that there is existence of the suit drain as described in the schedule ‘C’ of the plaint. Therefore, in my view, it is admitted fact that there is existence of the suit drain as described in the schedule ‘C’ of the plaint. Moreover, DW-1 Smt. Sukla Deb, the defendant No.1 in her cross examination admitted the fact that discharge and rain water of her house and the house of Sabita Malakar goes to the public drain through the suit drain. Therefore, it can be said that there is existence of the suit drain. 8. Now, I have to consider whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit drain. In this respect it is the plea of the plaintiffs that the suit drain is constructed by the original vendor of the plaintiffs namely Umarani Chakraborty from whom the predecessor of the plaintiffs purchased the ‘A’ schedule land of the plaint. Whereas it is the plea of the defendants No. 1 to 3 that they have constructed a private drain within their purchase land of 3 gandas and the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the same. In this respect, in cross-examination PW-2 Sri Uttam Bahadur Gurung deposed that the suit drain is within the house of the defendants PW-3 Sri Shyamal Sur also deposed that the suit drain is within the house of Sukla Deb, the defendant No.1. PW-5, Sri Partha Chakraborty also deposed that the suit drain is constructed by Sukla Deb within her house. Therefore, from the cross examination of PWs 2,3 and 5, I find that the suit drain is within the house of the defendant No. 1 to 3 and the suit drain is constructed by the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. In this context, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that in Ext.-1 the sale deed No. 1-403 (purchase deed of the land of the defendants No. 1 to 3) it is mentioned that in the southern boundary of the land of the defendant No. 1 to 3 there is a drain. Therefore, as per Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, no oral evidence can be taken into consideration as to the fact that the suit drain is within the purchase land of the defendants no. 1 to 3 and the same is constructed by them. Therefore, as per Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, no oral evidence can be taken into consideration as to the fact that the suit drain is within the purchase land of the defendants no. 1 to 3 and the same is constructed by them. In this context, learned counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 3 submitted that at the time of purchase of the land of the defendants No. 1 to 3 by Ext.-1, there was a proposal for construction of a drain in the southern boundary of the purchase land of the defendant no.1 to 3 and, therefore, it is mentioned in the Ext.-1 that there is a drain in the southern boundary of the purchase land of the defendants No. 1 to 3 which is merely a proposed drain and in reality no such drain till today has been constructed”. [Emphasis added] On basis of such finding, the suit was dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.01.2012 delivered in Title Suit 36 of 2010 the plaintiffs preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Title Appeal No. 08 of 2012 in the court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. Lateron, the said appeal was transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge (Court No.4), West Tripura, Agartala. By the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2013, the First appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court on observing as under:- “Admittedly, the total land described in schedule ‘A’ was owned by the father of the plaintiffs and the suit drain described in schedule ‘C’ is part of the ‘A’ schedule land not sold to the defendants. The learned trial Court has rightly decided the issue no. (iii) holding that the eastern end of the suit land is closed by the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. The plaintiffs (sic.). The defendants illegally created the obstruction on the eastern end of the drain by raising wall to pass the water from the house of the plaintiffs through the suit drain and liable to remove the said obstruction created by raising have the right, title and interest over the suit drain wall on the eastern end of the suit drain”(sic.). The said judgment dated 28.06.2013 is under challenge in this appeal. 10. Mr. The said judgment dated 28.06.2013 is under challenge in this appeal. 10. Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants has submitted that while reversing the judgment of the trial Court, the First appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidences in its perspective. According to him, the suit drain is within the boundary of the defendants. Therefore, the contention that the suit drain was constructed outside the boundary of the defendants and in between the defendant’s boundary and the road, cannot be accepted. He has referred the cross examination of DW-1 where DW-1 has stated that the father of the plaintiff No.2 was the owner of her dwelling hut. Her husband purchased the said dwelling house from one Manindra Chandra Laskar by the sale deed bearing No. 1-463 dated 25.01.1988. The boundary of her purchased dwelling house is in the north-Krishna Deb, south-drain and thereafter 7/5// wide pathway, east- vendor’s own land, west- Pratima Chowdhury. The dispute, the subject matter of the suit is in respect of the said drain. In the northern side of the said drain there is house of Smt. Sabita Malakar and Karna Bahadur Dukpa and in the southern side of the said drain, there is the house of Bharati Laskar and pathway. The said drain is connected towards the west with a public drain. It is not a fact according to DW-1, that in the eastern side of the said drain there is the house of the plaintiff. The defendants have allegedly closed the end of the eastern side of the said drain. The discharge and rain water from the house of Sabita Malakar go down through the suit drain to the public drain. The water of her house also goes down through the said drain to the public drain. DW-1 denied that there was no alternative drain for passing and discharge the rain water from the house of the plaintiff. However, DW-1 has also denied the fact that the boundary wall is in between the drain and the pathway for the protection of the pathway because the pathway was going to be broken due to the drain. It is not a fact that her statement as to the fact that the suit was filed to harass her cannot be treated as truth. 11. Mr. It is not a fact that her statement as to the fact that the suit was filed to harass her cannot be treated as truth. 11. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that from the Exhibit ‘C’ sale deed dated 14.08.2000 executed by Pratima Choudhury Laskar infavour of Mohanlal Malakar, it will be apparent that while describing the southern boundary of the land it has been described in the following terms: “in the north - Pramod Deb In the south - drain for passage of water from the schedule 1 land and thereafter a road with width of 7 ft.” According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, it is apparent that the said land in the schedule ‘1’, the drain was running over the schedule ‘2’ land. 11. The trial Court interpreted this part differently as done by the first appellate court by holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the fact that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit drain, as described in the schedule ‘C’ of the plaint and accordingly the suit was dismissed by the trial court The fact which clearly emerges from the oral evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 that the suit drain is within the house of the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 and the said drain has been constructed by the defendant No.1, is admissible in evidence and the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 is believable as the said witnesses has been produced by the plaintiff. Further, the trial court has observed that from the document submitted by the plaintiffs namely Exhibit-4, it appeared to the trial court that the suit drain is within the land of defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. Thus, the trial court believed that the suit drain is within the house of the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. Exhibit-4 is the mutated khatian No. 1690 which was opened in favour of the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. The entry on the basis of which the said interference was drawn is under column No. 24. It has recorded as under: “tin roofed hut -4, on the southern boundary of the northern plot meaning plot No. 4777, a drain with width of 1 ½ ft”. 12. The entry on the basis of which the said interference was drawn is under column No. 24. It has recorded as under: “tin roofed hut -4, on the southern boundary of the northern plot meaning plot No. 4777, a drain with width of 1 ½ ft”. 12. From the said khatian, it is apparent that the land purchased by the defendants No. 1,2 and 3 is comprised in old plots No. 916 and 917 (part) corresponding to the mutated plot No. 4786. The first appellate court reversed the said finding of the trial court and observed as under: “It is admitted fact that husband of defendant No.4 purchased his dwelling house by a registered sale deed (Exbt.3) from the plaintiff No.3 who had purchased that land from her father and was a part of land described in Schedule-A in the plaint. The house of Sabita Malakar, (Defendant No.4) is on the contiguous western side of the house of defendant no.1. On perusal of Exbt.3 at last page the schedule described the boundary speaks that there was a drain on the southern side of the house of Sabita Malakar, defendant no.4. The evidence of D.W. 1 in her cross examination is relevant here which run as follows: “The father of the plaintiff No.2 was the owner of my dwelling house earlier. My husband purchased the said house from Sri Manindra Chandra Laskar by a registered sale deed bearing no. 1-463 dated 25.1.1988 (which is marked as Ext. 1 and Ext. E-1). The boundary of purchased house is, in the north- Krishna Deb, South- drain, thereafter 7 ft. wide pathway, East- vendors own land, West- Pratima Choudhury. The present suit and dispute is in respect of the said drain. The said drain connected towards west with a public drain. The water of my house also goes through the suit drain to the public drain”. Thus defendant No.1 admitted the existence of the suit drain since purchase of her house by her husband. The plaintiff’s witnesses P.W.1 and 2 in their cross examination stated that the drain is within the house of the defendant No.1. The water of my house also goes through the suit drain to the public drain”. Thus defendant No.1 admitted the existence of the suit drain since purchase of her house by her husband. The plaintiff’s witnesses P.W.1 and 2 in their cross examination stated that the drain is within the house of the defendant No.1. But it is proved from the evidence in record that the suit drain is the southern boundary of the purchased land of the house of defendants No. 1 to 4 and the suit drain is outside of the purchased land of the husband of defendants No. 1 and 4. Thus, on scrutiny and analyzing the evidence in record it appears that the wall in between the pathway and the suit drain was constructed by the defendants with permission of the deceased father of the plaintiffs to protect the pathway on the southern side of the suit drain but used to pass water of all adjacent house.” [Emphasis added] 13. The judgment of the trial court has thus been reversed on the said finding and now the said finding has been questioned in this appeal on the said substantial question of law. Apparently, it may so appear that this appeal against the reversal finding has urged for re-inquiry into the factual aspects to the effect that whether the suit drain is outside the southern boundary of the purchased land, but the court has structured the said substantial question of law in the manner that whether the said finding has emerged from misreading of the evidence, as led by the plaintiffs. 14. The first appellate court has not even taken into consideration the oral testimony of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5. According to the trial Court, PW-2, Sri Uttam Bahadur Gurung has deposed in the trial that the suit drain is within the house of the defendants. PW-3, Sri Shyamal Sur has also deposed that the suit drain is within the house of Sukla Deb, the defendant No.1. PW-5, Sri Partha Chakraborty in the similar line has stated that the suit drain is constructed by Sukla Deb within her house. Therefore, from the cross examination of PWs 2, 3 and 5, the trial Court has found that the suit drain physically exists within the house of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and the suit drain is constructed by the defendants No. 1,2 and 3. Therefore, from the cross examination of PWs 2, 3 and 5, the trial Court has found that the suit drain physically exists within the house of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and the suit drain is constructed by the defendants No. 1,2 and 3. Let us re-visit those testimonies before we appreciate the boundary description of the sale deed (Exhibit-3) and its impact. PW-2, Sri Uttam Bahadur Gurung had initially stated that the foul water from the house of the plaintiff Dhiraj Laskar cannot flow through the drain. He has further stated in the cross-examination that the suit drain is situated in the southern side of the dwelling house of the defendant No.1 and there is a wall on the southern side of the drain. In the cross examination, PW-2 has categorically stated that the suit drain is within the house of the defendants. Dhiraj Laskar had asked for help of the members of Relievers, a local for allowing the passage through the suit drain. It is not a fact that my statements to the fact that Shukla Deb closed the drain is not true. PW-3, Sri Shyamal Sur has also stated in the examination-in-chief that the house of the defendant No.1 is situated on the northern side of the suit drain and there is a wall on the southern side of the suit drain. In examination-in-chief, the said description was never challenged. PW-5, Sri Partha Chakraborty has stated that the foul water from the house of the plaintiff No.1, Dhiraj Laskar could not be discharged through the suit drain and the said water was discharging over the nearby path way because of which local people raised hue and cry and Dhiraj Laskar told us that the eastern portion of the suit land was closed by defendant No.1, Smt. Sukla Deb and Smt.Deb also admitted that she closed the eastern portion of the suit drain and thereafter we requested Smt. Deb to open the drain but she refused. He has also stated that he saw the suit drain since his boyhood but he did not make any assertion whether from that plot of land the noxious water was coming down to that land or not. But in the cross examination he was categorical when he stated that the suit drain is constructed by Sukla Deb within her house. 15. But in the cross examination he was categorical when he stated that the suit drain is constructed by Sukla Deb within her house. 15. There is no dispute that the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 inherited the land as the legal heirs of Jatindra Debbarma, husband of the defendant No.1 and father of the defendants No.2 and 3. She has denied that the construction of the drain was made by someone else for discharging the noxious and foul water. Jatindra Deb alias Jatindra Chandra Debbarma purchased the land from Manindra Chandra Laskar, father of the plaintiff No.1 by a clear description of the boundaries. For purpose of reference, the said schedule is reproduced here-in-under having been translated in verbatim from Bengali to English: SCHEDULE OF THE BOUNDARIES District-West Tripura, Sub Division and Sub Registry-Sadar, Circle-Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Tehsil-Badharghat, Mouja-Badharghat comprised in Holding no. 470/455, Khatian No. 534 to 535, Plot No. 916917, within this land measuring 3(three) gandas is sold. On the north- Krishna Deb, South- drain for discharge of water and thereafter a road with width of 7 feet, on the East- the vendor’s own land and on the West- Pratima Choudhury having a homestead measuring 3(three) gandas”. 16. The defendants in their written statement have stated categorically that Khatian No. 534 has recorded the plots No. 916 and 917 (part) as stated, corresponding to the mutated plot No. 4785 for a piece of land measuring 0.065 acres. In paragraph 6 of the written statement, the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 have denied that ‘C’ schedule land was a drain of Uma Rani Chakraborty or it was the only passage till date for discharge of foul water etc. The predecessor of the plaintiff namely Manindra Chandra Laskar had sold the land to Jatindra Chandra Debbarma, but the defendants have stated that there is no mention that there was any drain inside the southern boundary of the transferred land for passage of water from the eastern plot but the drain has been mentioned as the southern boundary and not inside the southern boundary. The defendant No.1 has further stated that she had constructed the drain within the southern boundary of her land. Such statement got support from PWs 2, 3 and 5. 17. The defendant No.1 has further stated that she had constructed the drain within the southern boundary of her land. Such statement got support from PWs 2, 3 and 5. 17. Exhibit-6 is the sale deed dated 14.08.1974 executed by the original owner of the 'A’ schedule land namely Uma Rani Chakraborty in favour of Manindra Chandra Laskar, the predecessor of the plaintiffs. There is no description of the drain independently or as the boundaries, but in the Exhibit ‘3’-sale deed which was executed by Smt. Pratima Choudhury Laskar, there is a reference of a drain in the southern boundary and thereafter a road. There is no dispute that the drain existed. In 1974, when Manindra Chandra Laskar purchased the land from the schedule ‘A’ land belonged to Uma Rani Chakraborty, there did not exist any drain. Atleast, that is not found in the evidence. Therefore, the finding that there is a drain for discharge of the obnoxious and foul water from the land of the plaintiffs could not be probabalized by the plaintiffs. Even PW-2 and PW-5 have categorically stated that the drain was constructed by Shukla Deb, the defendant No.1 and thereafter a boundary wall had been constructed by her along the said road having 7 ft. width. 18. Exhibit-‘E-1’ document was completely overlooked by the first appellate court and the Exhibit-3 document isolatedly read, whereas the more relevant document is Exhibit ‘E-1’, which was executed by Manindra Chandra Laskar on 25.01.1988. There is no assertion that when the defendant No.1 had constructed the drain and boundary wall, there was any resistance from the plaintiffs or anyone else. The cause of action according to the plaintiff had arisen when the said drain was blocked causing stoppage of discharge of foul water from the land of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs by a hand-sketch map have made an attempt to establish without support of any acceptable records or other evidence that the drain is continuing over the plot of defendants No. 1 and 2. For this purpose they have relied upon the land of Mohanlal Malakar, now occupies by Sabita Malakar, wife of Mohanlal Malakar since deceased, to show that there exists a drain also on the southern side of the said boundary. Can it give a new light to the meaning of ‘southern boundary’, as described in Exhibit-‘3’ and Exhibit ‘E-1’? For this purpose they have relied upon the land of Mohanlal Malakar, now occupies by Sabita Malakar, wife of Mohanlal Malakar since deceased, to show that there exists a drain also on the southern side of the said boundary. Can it give a new light to the meaning of ‘southern boundary’, as described in Exhibit-‘3’ and Exhibit ‘E-1’? A conjoint reading would show that a drain existed on the southern boundary of the land belonging to the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 and the defendant No.4. From both the deeds Exhibit ‘3’ and Exhibit ‘E-1’, it is apparent that the purchased land is only 3 (three) gandas so far the land of the defendants No. 1,2 and 3 is concerned and in the southern boundary of the said land there existed the said drain, the schedule ‘C’ of the plaint. 19. There emerged overwhelming evidence in the records, that the defendant No.1 had constructed the said drain and boundary wall on the southern boundary of the said land. The plaintiffs are silent on such construction. Hence, it has to be held that the suit drain is possessed by the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 by virtue of the sale deed, Exhibit-C absolutely. Hence, the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2013 is set aside and quashed. Consequently, the suit is dismissed. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.