JUDGMENT : Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2011 made in A.S.No.60 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Mannargudi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2009 made in O.S.No.80 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi. 1. This appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2011 passed in A.S.No.60 of 2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2009 passed in O.S.No.80 of 2002 by the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi. The suit is for the recovery of possession. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows: [i] The property in Survey No.999/9 of Keelathondiakadu Village measuring an extent of 1 acre 89 cents, originally belongs to one Sivashankarathachi, wife of Vairappathevar. On 13.03.1966, the said Sivashankarathachi sold an extent of 17 cents in favour of Natesa Pillai, who is the father of the defendant. In the said Sale Deed, 4 boundaries are mentioned as follows: [ii] On 21.05.1972, the very same Sivashankarathachi sold the remaining extent of acre 72 cents in favour of Murugaiah Pillai, who is the father of the plaintiff. After made purchase, the said Murugaiah Pillai and the plaintiff are in the possession and enjoyment of the said 1 acre 72 cents. In the Sale Deed dated 21.05.1972 also, 4 boundaries are narrated as follows: [iii] The defendant is having the right and title only in respect to 17 cents. Now, after availing the patta for 0.08.05 ares, he is claiming title for 21 cents. In view of the order passed by the trial Court, the defendant put up a cow shed and also planted 3 coconut trees, in the property claimed by him. When at the time, the defendant attempted to construct a toilet, in the property situated on the West of 17 cents, the plaintiff sent advocate notice dated 15.08.2002 wherein he requested to vacate the encroached area. Hence, it would necessary to grant a decree for recovery of possession. Hence, the suit. 4. The case of the defendant, as averred in the written statement, is as follows: [i] The allegation levelled against the defendant in the plaint are all false. Hence, it would necessary to grant a decree for recovery of possession. Hence, the suit. 4. The case of the defendant, as averred in the written statement, is as follows: [i] The allegation levelled against the defendant in the plaint are all false. After made purchase from Sivashankarathachi, the defendant enjoyed the property to an extent of 21 cents. The 4 boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deed executed in favour of the plaintiff’s father, is having incorrect particulars. Apart from the plaintiff, his father Murugaiah Pillai, is having 1 son and 3 daughters and therefore, it is not correct to state that the plaintiff alone enjoyed his property. The coconut trees cultivated by the defendant is in the area of 21 cents. The age of the coconut trees is about 25 years. Further, the defendant enjoyed the suit property by putting a cow shed. After the demise of his father, the defendant alone is in the possession and enjoyment of the disputed land. [ii] After recognising the possession of the defendant, the government issued patta in his name. The property having by the defendant was sub-divided and afterwards, patta has also been issued. The defendant claims the suit property by means of adverse possession also. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff without impleading all the legal representatives of Murugaiah Pillai. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable for dismissal. 5. The averments found in the additional written statement filed by the defendant, are as follows: [i] In the plaint, the plaintiff did not say how and when the defendant encroached the suit property. He has not mentioned the cause of action. The defendant is in the possession of the suit schedule property for the past 38 years. Hence, he perfected the title by means of adverse possession. The plaintiff has not challenged the patta issued in favour of the defendant. 6. From the above averments, the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, framed necessary issues and tried the suit. On the side of the plaintiff, 3 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked 6 exhibits as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. Similarly, on the side of the defendant, 3 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked 5 exhibits as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5. Apart from those documents, the report, plan and copy of RSR submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner were marked as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3. 7. Similarly, on the side of the defendant, 3 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked 5 exhibits as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5. Apart from those documents, the report, plan and copy of RSR submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner were marked as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3. 7. Having considered the materials placed before him, the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, by judgment and decree dated 26.06.2009, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved his claim and accordingly, he is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession. In the appeal preferred by the defendant in A.S.No.60 of 2009, the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi, had confirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court and thereby, dismissed the appeal. 8. Feeling aggrieved over the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court, the defendant, is before this Court with the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal was admitted on file, after formulating the following substantial questions of law; “1. Whether the defendant has prescribed title by adverse possession in view of his long and uninterrupted possession of the property from the date of purchase on 13.03.1966 and in any event from 1984 when the UDR Patta was granted in favour of the father of the defendant as per Ex.B4 ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the other co-owners of the plaintiff as per the judgment reported in 1998 (1) CTC 453 ? 3. Whether the suit for recovery of possession without the prayer for declaration by the plaintiff is maintainable?” 9. Heard Mr.U.Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that an extent of 1 acre 89 cents in Survey No.999/9 of Keelathondiakadu Village, Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, originally belongs to one Sivashankarathachi, wife of Vairappathevar. Vide Sale Deed dated 13.03.1966 (Ex.A.1) she sold out the land measuring an extent of 17 cents in favour of Natesa Pillai, who is the father of the defendant. The recital found in the Sale Deed shows that the property situated in the North-West of the total property owned by Sivashankarathachi was sold to the defendant’s father. 11. Vide Sale Deed dated 13.03.1966 (Ex.A.1) she sold out the land measuring an extent of 17 cents in favour of Natesa Pillai, who is the father of the defendant. The recital found in the Sale Deed shows that the property situated in the North-West of the total property owned by Sivashankarathachi was sold to the defendant’s father. 11. Further, it is also not in dispute that vide Sale Deed dated 21.06.1972 (Ex.A.2), the same Sivashankarathachi sold the remaining extent of 1 acre 72 cents in favour of Murugaiah Pillai, who is the father of the plaintiff Ganesan. After made purchase, both Murugaiah Pillai and Natesa Pillai are in the possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. 12. Only in the said circumstances, the plaintiff herein filed the present suit saying that in the month of August, the defendant had encroached the plaintiff’s land to an extent of 5 cents and put up a cow shed. In this regard, the specific case of the plaintiff is that by misusing the order dated 22.03.2004 passed in I.A.No.595 of 2003 in O.S.No.80 of 2002 by the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, the defendant encroached an extent of 5 cents and put up a cow shed. 13. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that after made purchase, the vendor of the defendant (Sivashankarathachi) had given possession to an extent of 21 cents, from the date on which the possession was given to the defendant’s father, he is in the possession and enjoyment of 21 cents. It is the further case of the defendant that after recognising the defendant’s possession, the Revenue Authorities issued a patta in the name of defendant’s father for an extent of 21 cents and therefore, it cannot be said that the suit schedule property was encroached by the defendant’s family. Additionally, the defendant claims the suit property as he perfected the title by adverse possession. 14. After admitting the above background, the learned counsel for the appellant / defendant would contend that, after made purchase, the father of the plaintiff Murugaiah Pillai died intestate without making any arrangement in respect to the suit schedule property. During the time of his death, he left 2 sons and 3 daughters as his legal heirs. Among them, the plaintiff is one of the son. During the time of his death, he left 2 sons and 3 daughters as his legal heirs. Among them, the plaintiff is one of the son. Therefore, the present suit necessarily has to be filed by all the legal heirs of the deceased Murugaiah Pillai. But the plaintiff herein after left out all the other heirs of Murugaiah Pillai filed the present suit individually and therefore, the present suit is bad for rejoinder of necessary party. He would further contend that the Court below, without considering those aspects granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, which is erroneous in law. 15. Now, on considering the said submissions with the relevant records, it is true that while at the time the plaintiff gave evidence as P.W.1, in his cross examination, he admitted that he is having 3 sisters and one brother Ulaganathan. Further, as of now, the said Ulaganathan died before 15 years, after left out his wife, son and daughter as his legal heirs. So, the evidence given by P.W.1 in his cross examination is sufficient to hold that the other legal heirs left out his father has not filed this suit. In this regard, it would necessary to see whether a lapse committed by the plaintiff is sufficient to accept the case of the defendant and whether the present suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for rejoinder of necessary party. 16. In this regard, Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, referred the judgment of this Court in D.AKKAMMA (DIED) AND OTHERS vs. P.KANNAMMA AND OTHERS reported in (1976) 89 L.W. 666 and made submission that for filing the suit to the relief of recovery of possession, all the co-owners are not at all be necessary. In the said judgment, this Court has held as follows: “for recovery of possession of the property from a trespasser, one of several co-owners can certainly maintain a suit, without impleading the other co-owners as parties.” 17. Further, in the case of RAMACHANDRAN AND OTHERS vs. VALLIAMMAL AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 1 MLJ 188 , this Court has held as follows: “18. ...... Further, in the case of RAMACHANDRAN AND OTHERS vs. VALLIAMMAL AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 1 MLJ 188 , this Court has held as follows: “18. ...... This position in law is also well settled and in so far as this Court is concerned a Division Bench of this Court has clearly laid down in Syed Ahmed Sahib Shutari v. The Magnesite Syndicate Ltd. 28 M.L.J. 598 : I.L.R. 39 Mad, 601 : 291 C. 60, that one of several co-owners can maintain an action in ejectment against a trespasser without joining the other co-owners as parties to the action.” 18. Obviously, there is no dispute that after the death of Murugaiah Pillai, being the reason that he had not made any arrangement in respect to the suit schedule property, the son and daughters born to him, are all became co-owners, particularly, in respect to the suit schedule property. In the said situation, the plaintiff, who is one of the co-owner, is entitled to file the present suit and due to the same, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 19. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant / defendant would be that, in the present suit, the defendant has also claims the suit property as his own. Therefore, it would necessary for the plaintiff to ask the relief of declaration. But, here, it is a case, the plaintiff asked the relief of recovery of possession alone. The Court below, without considering the said aspect, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the same is also erroneous in law. 20. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of our Hon’ble Apex Court in ANATHULA SUDHAKAR vs. P.BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 . In the said judgment, our Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.” 21. Now, on considering the said submission as already observed that, from the total extent of 1 acre 89 cents, the father of the plaintiff Murugaiah Pillai vide Sale Deed [Ex.A.2] purchased the land to an extent of 1 acre 72 acres. Accordingly, the plaintiff is having the title deed for an extent of 1 acre 72 cents. In this area, it is the case of the plaintiff that among 1 acre 72 cents, the defendant encroached an extent of 5 cents (suit property) and put up a cow shed. Therefore, after having the title deed in respect to the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed the present suit for the recovery of possession. 22. It is true whether any cloud is indicated on the suit schedule property, it would necessary to ask the relief of declaration. But here, it is the case, the title deed pertains to the encroached area, is in the name of the plaintiff’s father. Therefore, the question of title is not under dispute as far as the present suit. It is one of the contention raised by the defendant that he perfected the title by adverse possession. It shows that the defendant himself admitted that the suit schedule property is the plaintiff’s property. In the said circumstances, the stand taken by the defendant is not showing any cloud over the suit schedule property and therefore, it is not necessary to ask the relief of declaration in respect to the suit property. 23. Though it was contended on the side of the defendant that the Revenue Authorities after recognising the defendant’s possession issued patta for 21 cents in his name. In order to substantiate the same, the copy of the patta stands in the name of the defendant, has not produced on his side. 23. Though it was contended on the side of the defendant that the Revenue Authorities after recognising the defendant’s possession issued patta for 21 cents in his name. In order to substantiate the same, the copy of the patta stands in the name of the defendant, has not produced on his side. Therefore, in the absence of relevant document, the submission made by the defendant’s counsel, cannot be accepted. 24. Further submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in a case of dispossession, the suit must be filed 12 years from the date of dispossession. Further, no amount of evidence cannot be looked into in the absence of necessary pleadings. Here, it is a case, the plaintiff has not stated anything about the date, on which, he dispossessed with the suit schedule property. Further, in this regard, he has not stated anything in the plaint. But the Court below without considering the same held that the present suit has been filed within a period of limitation and decreed the suit as prayed for. The said findings arrived at by the trial Court is not upon the relevant evidence and therefore, the present appeal has to be allowed. 25. He would further submit that Ex.A.4, the UDR patta was granted in 1984, through which, the possession of the defendant was recognised by the Revenue Authorities. It shows that the plaintiff is in uninterrupted possession of the suit property from the date of purchase on 13.03.1966 and therefore, it should be necessary to decide that the defendant prescribed the title by adverse possession. But, here it is a case, the Court below without considering the same allowed the suit, which is against the principles already set out by various Courts. 26. Now, on considering the said submissions, before the trial Court, the certified copy of Ex.B.1 marked in C.P.No.285 of 2007 in O.S.No.78 of 2002 was marked as Ex.B.4. The said document is nothing but a report given by the Special Tahsildar, UDR Scheme, Thiruthuraipoondi, wherein he has stated that an extent of 0.08.5 in Survey No.999/9A is in the name of the defendant. Relying on the said document, the defendant has submitted his case as the said document is sufficient to uphold the defendant’s long possession in the suit schedule property and thereby, he perfected the title by adverse possession. 27. Relying on the said document, the defendant has submitted his case as the said document is sufficient to uphold the defendant’s long possession in the suit schedule property and thereby, he perfected the title by adverse possession. 27. Being the reason that the defendant claiming the suit property by means of adverse possession, the burden is on him to show under what circumstances, he prescribed the title to the suit property. In general, to constitute adverse possession it has to be open, hostile and as a matter of right, in respect to the conditions required to constitute adverse possession has been explained by this Court in a case of NAGARAJAN vs. RAJAMANI AIYAR AND SEVEN OTHERS reported in 1999 (1) CTC 428 wherein it has held as follows: “12. Adverse possession is the exception in the recognition by law of acquisition of title only through lawful means. Adverse possession implies that possession commenced in wrong and (b) maintained against right corpus Juris Secundum. In order to constitute possession two conditions must be satisfied: The person concerned must be in a position to exercise some control or power over the thing or object he must intend or will to exercise this control or power- there must be both physical (corpus) and mental (animus) aspects or elements present to constitute possession. The animus part of it involved the mental element, the intention to control to hold for one’s own exclusive use recognising nobody else’s right of possession.” 28. Similarly, in a case of ITTAPPAN vs. MANAVIKRAMA reported in ILR 21 Mad. 153, wherein this Court has been held on adverse possession as follows: “Adverse possession refers to (a) actual and exclusive possession (b) coupled with the intention to hold as owner and (c) accompanied by such an invasion on the rights of the true owner as gives the latter a cause of action to sue for recovery of possession at once.” 29. It has been held in RANGAPPA vs. RANGASAMI reported in AIR 1925 Mad. 1005 that there must be express pleading of adverse possession. 30. It has been held in RANGAPPA vs. RANGASAMI reported in AIR 1925 Mad. 1005 that there must be express pleading of adverse possession. 30. In EJAZ ALI GIDWAI AND OTHERS vs. THE SPECIAL MANAGER, COURT OF WARDS, BALRAMPUR ESTATE AND OTHERS, reported in 68 MLJ 397 it has been held that, “the principle of law is firmly established that a person, who bases his title on adverse possession, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed.” 31. In PUTTATHAYAMMA AND ANOTHER vs. RATHNARAJIAH AND ANOTHER, reported in AIR 1955 Mys. 33 it has been held that, “where the plaintiff and defendant are close relations, very much more and better and stronger evidence of a positive character is necessary to establish title by prescription and adverse possession in favour of the plaintiff.” 32. In S.M.KARIM vs. MST.BIBI SAKINA reported in AIR 1964 SC 1254 : 1964 (6) SCR 780 : 1964 (2) SCJ 224 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. ......Long Possession is not necessarily adverse possession.” 33. In KARMEGA KONE vs. UDAYAR KONE AND OTHERS reported in 1979 (I) MLJ 419 following the decision in S.M.KARIM vs. MST.BIBI SAKINA reported in AIR 1964 SC 1254 : 1964 (6) SCR 780 : 1964 (2) SCJ 224 Chief Justice Ramaprasada Rao observed that, “Plea of adverse possession has to be pleaded and proved so that the real owner might set up a case (might be true in some cases) that such possession of the claimant was only permissive and was never intended to be adverse so far as his real title was concerned..... the time from which it should be deemed to have commenced should also be made specific and public, so that the real owner might be given a fair and just opportunity to plead otherwise and set up a case that such adverse possession as claimed by the other person did not begin on the date claimed by him.” 34. In GANDA SINGH AND OTHERS vs. RAM NARAIN SINGH reported in AIR 1959 Pun. In GANDA SINGH AND OTHERS vs. RAM NARAIN SINGH reported in AIR 1959 Pun. 147 it has been held that, “to constitute adverse possession it should be “actual, adverse, exclusive, peaceful, continuous, unbroken, open, notorious, visible, distrinct, unequivocal and hostile under a colour of title, or, claim of right. There should be given a date of commencement, the territorial extent and the length of adverse possession and they should also have to be proved.” 35. In ANANTHA PILLAI vs. RATHNASABAPATHY MUDALIAR AND OTHERS reported in 1968 (II) MLJ 574 it has been held that, “the concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession, i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other’s rights, but denies them. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most crucial factor.” 36. In PARSINNI (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS vs. SUKHI AND OTHERS reported in 1993 (4) SCC 375 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “to constitute adverse possession the party has to plead and prove that he remained in possession in his own right.” 37. Most of the above cases have been referred to in PONNAIYAN vs. MUNIAN (DIED) AND OTHERS reported in 1995 (II) MLJ 294 : 1995 (I) L.W. 680 and the following ingredients have been formulated: “A person by holding possession of the properly for the statutory period can acquire title only when his possession is: (1) under a claim of title (2) hostile to the true owner and (3) actual, open, uninterrupted, exclusive and continuous.” This decision has been referred to and followed in NATESAN vs. CHINNACHI KANDAR AND 4 OTHERS reported in 1996 (I) CTC 699 , AIR 1996 Mad. 468 : 1996 (2) LW 344 . The learned Judge has held that, “there can be no adverse possession if the person claiming does not know that he is enjoying somebody else’s land”. These two decisions were cited by the Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Chandramouli for the contesting respondents. 468 : 1996 (2) LW 344 . The learned Judge has held that, “there can be no adverse possession if the person claiming does not know that he is enjoying somebody else’s land”. These two decisions were cited by the Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Chandramouli for the contesting respondents. Though I do not subscribe to the view taken in the said two decisions that there can be no adverse possession if the person claiming does not know that he is enjoying somebody else’s land, still on the other aspects these decisions lay down the correct law that there must be a claim of title hostile to the true owner and the possession should be actual, open, uninterrupted, exclusive and continuous. 38. In ABUBAKAR ABDUL INAMDAR ETC. vs. NARUN ABDUL INAMBAR AND OTHERS reported in 1995 (5) SCC 612 : JT 1995 (7) SC 179 the Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted the importance of pleadings with specific reference as to when it commenced and as to when it became adverse. In that case while dealing with the plea of adverse possession, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “With regard to the plea of adverse possession, the appellant having been successful in the two courts below and not in the High Court, one has to turn to the pleadings of the appellant in his written statement. There he has pleaded a duration of his having remained in exclusive possession of the house, but nowhere has he pleaded a single overt act on the basis of which it could be informed or ascertained that from a particular point of time his possession became hostile and notorious to the complete exclusion of other heirs, and his being in possession openly and hostilely. It is true that some evidence, basically of Municipal register entries were inducted to prove the point but no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of the claim of a litigating party.” 39. To constitute adverse possession there should be neccinum nec precario. 40. In DR.MAHESH CHAND SHARMA vs. RAJKUMARI SHARMA reported in AIR 1996 SC 869 : 1996 (8) SCC 128 : 1996 (I) SCJ 73 : AIR 1996 SCW 253 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. To constitute adverse possession there should be neccinum nec precario. 40. In DR.MAHESH CHAND SHARMA vs. RAJKUMARI SHARMA reported in AIR 1996 SC 869 : 1996 (8) SCC 128 : 1996 (I) SCJ 73 : AIR 1996 SCW 253 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all the facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.” 41. In S.SUBBA REDDIAR (DIED) AND OTHERS vs. BHAGYALAKSHMI AMMAL AND ANOTHER reported in 1996 (2) L.W. 31 it has been held that, “it is for the person claiming title to prove existence of hostile title and that the person remained silent even after knowledge there of mere a silence or keeping animus in mind cannot make the title lost to the real owner. Definite date is required to claim adverse possessions and pleading is absolutely necessary.” 42. Now, applying the principles set out in the above referred judgments, here, it is a case, in the written statement filed by the defendant, he claims the title in the suit schedule property as he perfected title by means of adverse possession. In the above situation, in respect to his possession when at the time the defendant gave evidence as D.W.1 stated in his cross examination as follows:- 43. The said evidence is very clear and narrow that the defendant encroached the suit schedule property before 2 years from the date on which he was examined as D.W.1. The said evidence alone is sufficient to accept the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is not in the uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property for the period of 12 years. Therefore, it is apparent that the claim made by the defendant in respect to the adverse possession, is not proved. 44. Therefore, in the light of the said discussions, the substantial questions of law raised, are all answered in favour of the respondent / plaintiff and thereby, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 11.04.2011 passed in A.S.No.60 of 2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi, is hereby confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.