JUDGMENT : Heard. 1) This appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 3 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2013 dated 23.07.2016, whereby the civil suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction, possession and damages was decreed. 2) The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted a suit seeking the declaration of title, a declaration that the mutation entry No. 70 made in the year 1977 is void, for permanent injunction and damages for loss of crop for the year 1991-92 in respect of the lands and house described in Schedules 'A' and 'B'. The family tree of the parties is given below:- The plaintiff pleaded that there was a partition between the three sons of Gopal and the disputed property fell in share of Tilak. After the death of Tilak, the entire property was inherited by Sukhmat Bai and Dukalhin Bai, who were wives of the late Tilak and after their death, the entire property was inherited by Aheli Bai, who was the daughter of Tilak and Dukalhin Bai. Aheli Bai got married to Khelawan and the plaintiff was born out of their wedlock. After some time, Aheli Bai became blind and Khelawan (her husband) left her, therefore, she joined her mother Dukalhin Bai. The suit property was being cultivated by Khelawan, but later on, Khelawan left Aheli Bai. Thereafter, Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai gave disputed property in Adhiya to Bachan and his son Bhagwati (defendant No.1). After the death of Dukalhin Bai in the year 1976-77 and the death of Aheli Bai in the year 1990, the plaintiff Nana Bai became sole owner of the suit property, but when she visited Patwari, she came to know that the name of defendant No. 1 has been mutated in the revenue records, therefore, she filed suit seeking relief(s) as stated above. 3) The defendants in the written statement have stated that after the death of Sukhmat Bai and Dukalhin Bai, Aheli Bai gifted the entire suit property and house to defendant No.1 vide gift deed dated 15.01.1977 and possession was also handed over. Defendant No.1 denied that the suit property was given to him on Adhiya. 3) The defendants in the written statement have stated that after the death of Sukhmat Bai and Dukalhin Bai, Aheli Bai gifted the entire suit property and house to defendant No.1 vide gift deed dated 15.01.1977 and possession was also handed over. Defendant No.1 denied that the suit property was given to him on Adhiya. It was further stated that he looked after Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai during their lifetime and also performed their last rites. He denied the fact that Aheli Bai was a married lady. In addition, the defendants claimed right over the suit property on the basis of adverse possession. 4) The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property described in Schedules 'A' and 'B' having a total area of 8.50 acres and the mutation entry No. 70 year 1977 is liable to be set aside as being illegal. The learned trial Court further granted a decree of the permanent injunction but declined to grant damages for the years 1991-92. The learned trial court also held that the defendants could not prove that by virtue of the gift deed dated 15.01.1977 the possession of the suit property was handed over to defendant No. 1 and defendant No.1 could not prove his right and ownership over the property on the basis of the law of prescription. The trial Court found the civil suit well within limitation. Eventually, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. 5) Learned counsel for defendants No. 1 to 3/appellants would submit that there is a non-joinder of parties as survey No. 740 new survey No. 321 and survey No. 526 new survey No. 766 were recorded in the name of Chandrika S/o Chandraman. He would further submit that the part of the suit property was sold by defendant No.1 to other defendants, but the plaintiff failed to amend her plaint. He would also submit that defendant No.1 has specifically denied that the plaintiff is the daughter of Aheli Bai, no issue was framed in this regard and there is no documentary evidence to establish that the plaintiff was the daughter of Aheli Bai. He would further contend that the burden to prove the fact that the plaintiff has the right over the suit property was on her and the same has not been discharged. He would further contend that the burden to prove the fact that the plaintiff has the right over the suit property was on her and the same has not been discharged. He would also contend that the suit was not properly valued as no Court Fees was paid with regard to relief of permanent injunction. He would further argue that neither the suit was properly valued nor the requisite Court Fees was affixed so far as regards relief of declaration of the order of mutation as null and void is concerned. He would also argue that the gift deed executed in favour of defendant No. 1 was not challenged by the plaintiff and the same is still in existence. He would submit that the order of mutation was passed on 15.01.1977 and defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit land, whereas the suit was filed on 19.02.1992, and thus the suit was barred by limitation according to the provisions of Article 58 of the Limitation Act. In support thereof, learned counsel for defendants No. 1 to 3/appellants has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of A. Subramanian and Another vs. R. Pannerselvam, (2021) 3 SCC 675 ; Rangammal vs. Kuppuswami and Another, (2011) 12 SCC 220 and the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Manti Sahu vs. Mahesh Ganjeer, reported in 2023 (1) C.G.L.J. 299. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff would submit that the gift deed dated 15.01.1977 is an unregistered document and it was not executed in accordance with Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which clearly provides that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument and attested by at least two witnesses. She would further submit that according to the provisions of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the gift deed dated 15.01.1977 is not admissible in evidence. She would also submit that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person and is only for fiscal purposes i.e. payment of land revenue. She would further contend that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the property as she was the only daughter of Aheli Bai. She would also submit that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person and is only for fiscal purposes i.e. payment of land revenue. She would further contend that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the property as she was the only daughter of Aheli Bai. Aheli Bai was the daughter of Dukalhin Bai and the property was recorded in the names of Dukalhim Bai and Aheli Bai, also the gift deed has not been proved in accordance with the law, therefore, the plaintiff alone has the right over the suit property. She would also contend that according to the provisions of Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof lies on the defendants to prove that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Aheli Bai. She would further argue that defendant No.1 in this regard made a statement by way of a general denial. She would also argue that the plaintiff's witnesses have supported that Nana Bai is the daughter of Aheli Bai. She would further submit that the evidence of defendant No.1 is not reliable as he was not aware whether Aheli Bai was married or not. She would also submit that defendant No.1 has raised a vague argument regarding the non-joinder of parties to whom some part of the suit property was sold before and after the filing of the suit. She would contend that the learned trial Court rightly decreed the suit and the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Gomtibai (Smt) (Dead) Through LRS. and Others vs. Mattulal (Dead) Through LRS., (1996) 11 SCC 681 ; Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; Nagar Palika, Raisinghnagar vs. Rameshwar Lal and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 618 ; Jafauri Sah and Others vs. Dwarika Prasad Jhunjhunwala and Others, AIR 1967 SC 109 and Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 . 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8) Undisputedly, the plaintiff has claimed right over the suit property only on the ground that she is the daughter of Aheli Bai and the property was recorded in the names of Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai and after their death she alone has the right over the suit property. In the year 1977, an order of mutation was passed in favour of defendant No. 1 and the suit property was recorded in his name. Defendant No. 1 has claimed his right on the basis of the gift deed dated 15.01.1977 (Ex.-D/1). The gift deed was executed by Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai whereas the scribe of the document was Govind. The attesting witnesses were Chain Patel, Bhuklu and Tagnawa. In the entire plaint, there is no whisper with regard to the gift deed whereas defendants No. 1 to 3 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. In Para- 3B, the defendants pleaded that the gift deed was executed in their favour by Dukhalin Bai and Aheli Bai and possession was also handed over, but no counter claim was filed by the defendants to claim right over the suit property on the strength of the gift deed. 9) PW-1 Nana Bai has stated that she is the only daughter of Aheli Bai who died in the year 1990 and she is the owner of the suit property. She stated that there was a partition between Tilak, Bachan and Bodhwa who were real brothers. After the death of Tilak, the suit property was recorded in the name of Dukalhin Bai and the name of Aheli Bai was also recorded as she was the daughter of Dukalhin Bai and after their death, she became the owner of the property. She further stated that she approached the Patwari then only she came to know that the suit property had been recorded in the name of defendant No. 1. She has further stated that the order of mutation was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without notice. It is also stated that no gift deed was executed by Dukalhim Bai and Aheli Bai in favour of defendant No. 1 and the same is a forged document. She has further stated that the order of mutation was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without notice. It is also stated that no gift deed was executed by Dukalhim Bai and Aheli Bai in favour of defendant No. 1 and the same is a forged document. In cross-examination, no question was put to discard the evidence to the effect that the plaintiff is not a daughter of Aheli Bai. 10) PW-2 Chandra Kumar has also stated that the plaintiff is the daughter of Aheli Bai and she has the right over the suit property. Likewise, PW-3 Laxman supported the case of the plaintiff, but in cross-examination, no question was put to doubt the relationship between Aheli Bai and the plaintiff. Ex.-D/3 shows that earlier suit property was recorded in the names of Sukhmati and Dukalhin Bai and vide mutation entry No. 70 the suit property was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 on the basis of the gift deed. 11) Defendant witness No. 1 Bhagwati Bai has stated that on 15.01.1977 gift deed was executed by Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai in his favour in the presence of the witnesses namely, Chain Singh, Govind and two other witnesses and possession was also handed over. He has further pleaded that on the basis of adverse possession, he has become the owner of the property. In cross-examination, he admitted the fact that he had no knowledge that Tilak performed marriage to Dukalhin Bai, but he knows Dukalhin Bai, who is the wife of Tilak. He has further admitted that the name of the daughter of Tilak was Aheli Bai, she died at the age of 70-80 years and there was a difference of 15 years between his age and the age of Aheli Bai. He has also admitted that after the death of Tilak, the suit property was recorded in the names of Sukhmat Bai, Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai and he does not know with regard to the marriage of Aheli Bai. He denied the suggestion with regard to the marriage of Aheli Bai with Khilawan. He stated that he does not recognize plaintiff Nana Bai. He further stated that the registered gift deed was executed in the presence of four witnesses in the office of the Sub-Registrar. He denied the suggestion with regard to the marriage of Aheli Bai with Khilawan. He stated that he does not recognize plaintiff Nana Bai. He further stated that the registered gift deed was executed in the presence of four witnesses in the office of the Sub-Registrar. 12) DW-2 Sukhiram in cross-examination stated that he was not aware whether or not Aheli Bai is the daughter of Dukalhin Bai. In the last line of para-6, he admitted that Aheli Bai was staying in the house of Bhagwati and at that time he was a child. He also stated that he is not aware whether the suit property was recorded in the names of Sukhmat Bai, Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai. He further stated in para – 9 that he was not aware of the fact whether the gift deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1 by Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai. 13) Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with the gift deed. From a bare reading of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is quite vivid that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. Under section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift of immovable property cannot pass any title to the donee if it is not registered. 14) In the present case, defendant No. 1 has examined himself and witness Sukhiram (DW-2) to prove the due execution of the gift deed dated 15.01.1977. The gift deed is not a registered document and DW-2 in cross-examination has stated that he was not aware of the fact that whether any gift deed was executed by Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai in favour of defendant No.1. The gift deed was not executed in accordance with Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and no counter claim was filed by defendant No. 1 to claim right over the suit property on the basis of the gift deed. 15) Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has argued that the plaintiff could succeed on the strength of her own title and not on the weakness of the case of the defendants. 15) Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has argued that the plaintiff could succeed on the strength of her own title and not on the weakness of the case of the defendants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of A. Subramanian (supra) in paras- 26 and 27 held as under:- “26. The learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to the judgment of this Court in Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pandey v. Swami K. Narayandasji, (2005) 10 SCC 11 , in which case this Court elaborated the cumulative factors for granting a temporary injunction which case is clearly distinguishable and has no application in the present case. Next judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is in Jagdish Prasad Patel v. Shivnath, (2019) 6 SCC 82 . In the above case, in the suit for declaration of title and possession this Court reiterated the principle that suit for declaration of title and possession the plaintiffs will succeed on the strength of their own title irrespective of whether the defendants proved their case or not. In paras 44 and 45, the following was laid down: (Jagdish Prasad Patel case, SCC pp. 101-02) “44. In the suit for declaration of title and possession, the respondent-plaintiffs could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the appellant-defendants. The burden is on the respondent-plaintiffs to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. The respondent-plaintiffs have neither produced the title document i.e. patta-lease which the respondent-plaintiffs are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence. As noted above, the revenue entries relied on by them are also held to be not genuine. In any event, revenue entries for few khataunis are not proof of title; but are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title. 45. Observing that in a suit for declaration of title, the respondent-plaintiffs are to succeed only on the strength of their own title irrespective of whether the appellant-defendants have proved their case or not, in Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 269 , it was held as under: (SCC p. 275, para 15) '15. 45. Observing that in a suit for declaration of title, the respondent-plaintiffs are to succeed only on the strength of their own title irrespective of whether the appellant-defendants have proved their case or not, in Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 269 , it was held as under: (SCC p. 275, para 15) '15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.' ” 27. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by this Court in the above cases. But coming to the facts in the present case the present suit giving rise to this appeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession rather the suit was filed for injunction. As noted above, the High Court has given cogent reasons for holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction was maintainable without entering into the title of the plaintiff in facts of the present case specially in view of the previous litigation which was initiated at the instance of Defendant 1 where he lost the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the same property. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that evidence filed by the defendant were not looked into is not correct. The trial court as well as the High Court have looked into not only the oral evidence but the exhibits which were filed on behalf of the defendant which is clear from the discussion made by the High Court in paras 13 and 16.” In the present case, the plaintiff has categorically pleaded that she was the sole daughter of Aheli Bai and she has the right over the suit property, but fraudulently defendant No. 1 mutated his name in the revenue records. Defendant No.1 has claimed right over the suit property on the basis of the gift deed, but he failed to prove the due execution of the gift deed, therefore, the plaintiff succeeded in proving her title. Defendant No.1 has claimed right over the suit property on the basis of the gift deed, but he failed to prove the due execution of the gift deed, therefore, the plaintiff succeeded in proving her title. Further, the facts of the judgment relied on by learned counsel for the appellants are different from the facts of the present case. 16) Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment rendered in the matter of Rangammal (supra) to demonstrate that the learned trial Court erred in shifting the burden of proof on defendant No. 1. The relevant para- 21 which deals with Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- “21. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines “burden of proof” which clearly lays down that: “101. Burden of proof.–Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.” Thus, the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts it. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of the other party.” According to the provisions of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts it until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. In the present case, the plaintiff has categorically pleaded that she is the only daughter of Aheli Bai. The plaintiff's witnesses have supported the case. Undisputedly, the property was recorded in the name of Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai prior to 1977. The primary burden was discharged by the plaintiff; therefore, the burden was shifted to defendant No. 1 to prove the contrary and the learned trial Court rightly held that defendant No. 1 could not discharge the burden of proof. Undisputedly, the property was recorded in the name of Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai prior to 1977. The primary burden was discharged by the plaintiff; therefore, the burden was shifted to defendant No. 1 to prove the contrary and the learned trial Court rightly held that defendant No. 1 could not discharge the burden of proof. 17) Learned counsel for the appellants has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Manti Sahu (supra), where it is held that the first appellate Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that though the agreement dated 21.01.2009 was executed with the consent of both the parties, yet agreement was executed by Mahesh Ganjeer to protect himself from future consequence of any criminal case which could arise due to the said second marriage with Manti Sahu and thus, it was rightly held by the first appellate Court that the agreement dated 21.01.2009 was executed in violation of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Though the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on this judgment, in that case, the agreement dated 21.01.2009 was under challenge which was declared null and void by the first appellate Court. In the present case, defendant No.1 is claiming right over the suit property on the basis of a gift deed dated 15.01.1977, but the same has not been proved in accordance with law by defendant No.1 even though no counter claim was filed. The facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of the case relied on by the learned counsel for appellants. 18) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gomtibai (supra) in para- 4 has held as under:- “4. Thus, it is seen that the gift of immovable property should be made only for transferring the right, title and interest by the donor to the donee by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and must be attested by at least two witnesses. The pre-existing right, title and interest of donor thereby stand divested in the donee by operation of Section 17 of the Registration Act only when the gift deed is duly registered and thereafter the donor would lose title to the property. It must also be proved that the donee and accepted the property gifted over under the instrument. The pre-existing right, title and interest of donor thereby stand divested in the donee by operation of Section 17 of the Registration Act only when the gift deed is duly registered and thereafter the donor would lose title to the property. It must also be proved that the donee and accepted the property gifted over under the instrument. In this case, though the transfer of gift was acted upon by Kusturibai as per the correspondence and evidence on record, but, admittedly, there is no written instrument executed by the donor, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant in favour of their cousin sister Kusturibai and it was got attested by at least two witnesses and registered in accordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. In the absence of compliance of these formalities, at best what could be seen from the partition deed is that the original plaintiff and the defendant have expressed their intention to gift over the land to their cousin sister Kusturibai. As held earlier, in the absence of any registered instrument of gift and acceptance thereof by the donee, the said property could not be said to have been legally transferred in favour of their cousin sister; in other words, the gift is not complete in the eye of law. Therefore, the District Court has rightly set aside the decree of the trial court which was later confirmed by the High Court. We do not find any error of law warranting interference.” 19) The revenue entry in favour of a person does not confer any title. Though vide mutation entry No. 70 of the year 1977 name of defendant No.1 was recorded in the revenue records, such a person has to show his title. 20) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jitendra Singh (supra) in paras – 6 and 7 has held as under:- “6. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights cystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made. 7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.” 21) The plaintiff pleaded that she is the only daughter of Aheli Bai. The property was recorded in the name of Dukalhin Bai and Aheli Bai and after their death; she had right over the suit property. To prove the contrary, defendant No.1 ought to have adduced evidence and the burden of proof was on defendant No. 1 whereas mere denial is not sufficient. The plaintiff's witnesses have supported the case of the plaintiff. To prove the contrary, defendant No.1 ought to have adduced evidence and the burden of proof was on defendant No. 1 whereas mere denial is not sufficient. The plaintiff's witnesses have supported the case of the plaintiff. They have categorically stated that the plaintiff is the daughter of Aheli Bai, whereas there is no evidence to rebut the evidence led by plaintiff's witnesses. 22) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rameshwar Lal (supra) in paras- 14 and 15 has held as under:- “14. It is not in dispute as now one can say that the respondent's predecessor-in-title was granted patta in relation to the suit land on payment. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is the grandson of original allottee. It is also not in dispute that the appellant-defendant though took a stand that the patta in question was cancelled and money returned but the appellant could not prove it with the aid of any evidence. It is also not in dispute that though the appellant took a stand that the patta granted to the respondent's predecessor-in-title did not relate to the suit land but of some other land, the appellant also failed to prove even this fact with the aid of any evidence. 15. The aforementioned stand taken by the appellant, in our view, was required to be proved by the appellant because the burden to prove these facts was on them but they failed to prove any of the issues though raised.” 23) The learned Court below has found the evidence of defendant No. 1 misleading as he denied recognizing Aheli Bai as well as her husband. He has not denied specifically that Nana Bai is not the daughter of Aheli Bai. Defendant No. 1 has raised an argument with regard to the non-joinder of parties to whom some part of the suit property was sold. Defendant No.1 has not pleaded these facts in his written statement and it is well-settled law that no party can be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and all necessary facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. 24) From above above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 24) From above above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 25) Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.