- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100409 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. MUDAKAPPA S/O. JANGALEPPA ARI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YAKALASAPUR, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG-582 118. 2. MALLESHAPPA S/O MUDAKAPPA ARI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YAKALASAPUR, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG-582 118. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SHARANAPPA S/O BASAVANTAPPA ARI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHABBI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582 120. 2. SMT. KASTUREVVA W/O IRAPPA SHALAWADI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHABBI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582 120. 3. SMT. DRAKSHAYANAVVA W/O BASAPPA KATRALLI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHABBI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582 120. 4. SMT. JAYAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPA GANJI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 R/O: CHABBI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582 120. 5. SMT. MADEVI W/O. IRAPPA ADARAKATTI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHABBI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582 120. 6. BHARAMAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA ARI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHABBI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582 120. 7. ISHWARAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA ARI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHABBI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582 120. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE.) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2017, PASSED IN O.S. NO.62/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GADAG BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND DISMISSING THE SUIT WITH COST AND ETC.,. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2017, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, in O.S.No.62/2016, thereby, the suit filed for declaration is decreed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the records and the material placed before the Court. 3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 4. It is the case of plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule land bearing R.S.No.368/1 measuring 04 acres 39 guntas, situated at Mevundi village of Mundaragi taluk in Gadag district. The plaintiffs have stated genealogy in the plaint as mentioned hereunder: Mallappa Doddabasappa @ Bharamappa Ari (Propositus) (died) Basavantappa (died) Bharamappa Ishwarappa Sangavva (died) P6 P7 Kasturevva Drakshayanavva Jayavva Madevi Sharanappa P2 P3 P4 P5 P1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 5. It is the case of plaintiffs that one Mallappa Doddabasappa @ Bharamappa Ari is the propositus of plaintiffs family. The said Mallappa has three sons by name Basavantappa, Bharamappa and Ishwarappa. The said Basavantappa died on 23.11.2015 and his wife Sangavva died on 01.01.2015. The plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are children of said Basavantappa. It is the case of plaintiffs that the suit property is the ancestral property of plaintiffs. The propositus Mallappa was cultivating the suit land and is in possession of the property. The names of Mallappa and his mother Konthevva came to be entered in the record of rights of suit property. The name of mother Konthevva came to be entered as minor guardian of said Mallappa. Both Mallappa and Konthevva died. After death of propositus Mallappa, his sons Basavantappa and plaintiffs No.6 and 7 have inherited the suit land. The names of said Basavantappa and plaintiffs No.6 and 7 came to be entered in the record of rights of suit schedule - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 property on 23.11.2004. After death of Basavantappa, plaintiffs No.1 to 5 have inherited the suit land. 6. It is further contention of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 is the father of defendant No.2. The defendants are in no way concerned with the suit land and as well as the plaintiffs. The defendants are not owners in possession of the suit property. Thereafter the plaintiffs came to know that the name of defendant No.1 has got entered in the record of rights of the suit schedule property as M.R.No.184/2004-05 dated 29.03.2005 without their knowledge and behind the back of the plaintiffs. Therefore, further defendant No.1 had executed gift deed in favour of defendant No.2, but defendant No.1 did not have any title and ownership over the suit land. Thus, the gift made by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 is illegal. Further, the defendants are obstructing the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession. Therefore the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 7. Upon receipt of the summons by the trial Court, the defendants have appeared through their advocate and filed the written statement and denied that the plaintiffs are having title and ownership over the suit schedule properties and also denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule land. The defendants have contended that defendant No.1 is the brother of plaintiffs No.6 and 7 and father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5. It is stated that the suit schedule land was partitioned among themselves in the joint family on 03.02.2005 and the memorandum of partition was effected and acted upon. As per this memorandum of partition, the mutation entry was effected. Thus, the defendants are owner of the property. Since defendant No.1 is owner of the property, therefore, had executed a gift deed in favour of son of defendant No.2. 8. It is further case of the defendants that the father of defendant No.1 namely Jangleppa is the brother of plaintiff Nos.6 and 7 and the father of plaintiffs late - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 Basavantappa. The plaintiffs No.6 and 7 and father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 have started selling all other properties, for which the defendant objected and sought his share in the said property. Therefore, the suit schedule land was allotted to the share of defendant No.1 by virtue of partition effected through memorandum of partition. It is further contended that plaintiffs No.6 and 7 and father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 after selling the properties situated at Chabbi village, they purchased the property bearing R.S.No.385/1 in the name of plaintiff No.1. Therefore they contend that the plaintiffs are not concerned with the suit schedule land. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 9. Based on pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are the joint owners in possession of the suit schedule property, having inherited the same from their ancestors? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, the alleged interference of defendants over the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, defendant No.1 and 2 are the strangers to their family? 4. Whether the defendants prove his father is the brother of plaintiff No.6 and 7 and father of plaintiff No.1 to 5, and the suit schedule property was partitioned amongst themselves in respect of joint family property on 03.02.2005, and the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of defendant No.1? 5. Whether the defendant further proves that, the suit is barred by limitation? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed in plaint? 7. What order and decree? Additional Issue 1. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, he has acquired the suit schedule property by way of gift deed executed by the defendant No.2 in his favour through registered gift deed dated 25.09.2014 as contended in para 13 of his written statement? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 10. The plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and got marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. The defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and examined 7 witnesses as DW.2 and 8 and got marked documentary evidence as Ex.D1 to Ex.D31. 11. The Trial Court has decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiffs are joint owners and possessor of the suit schedule land and held that the registered Gift Deed dated 25.09.2014 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiffs. 12. The Trial Court assigned reason that defendant No.1 failed to prove that his father was the brother of plaintiff Nos.6 and 7 and father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and the suit schedule land was partitioned among themselves in respect of joint family property on 03.02.2005 and the suit schedule land was fallen to the share of defendant No.1. The Trial Court has further assigned a reason that the defendants have not proved that they are the relatives - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 of plaintiff’s family. When the plaintiffs have contended that the defendants are nowhere related to their family, the burden is on the defendants to prove that they are the relatives of the plaintiffs’ family, but the defendants have failed to prove this aspect. The Trial Court held that the defendants have failed to establish that father of defendant No.1 was the brother of plaintiff Nos.6 and 7 and father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 as alleged in the written statement. Though the defendants have examined seven witnesses, but from their evidence, the relationship is not proved and also upon appreciating the evidence of DW.7 that he has given evidence that Mallappa is the only son to his father, therefore, negatived the contention of the defendants. Thus, the Trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs. 13. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendants have preferred the present appeal by raising various grounds. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 14. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the genealogy produced by the plaintiffs is incorrect, that mislead the Trial Court to pass erroneous judgment. It is submitted that when Doddabasappa was the original propositus and he has four sons namely Doddabharamappa, Sanna Bharamappa, Honkareppa and Channabasappa. Doddabharamappa has son by name Mallappa and Sanna Bharamappa has one son by name Jangaleppa. The plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 are the children of Basavantappa and plaintiff Nos.6 and 7 are children of Mallappa. Defendant No.1 is son of Jangaleppa and defendant No.2 is son of defendant No.1. When this being the genealogy, proving relationship between the family of the plaintiffs and defendants and DW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the original propositus is Doddabasappa. Therefore, the Trial Court has not considered this evidence. He further argued that the plaintiffs and defendants family were having ancestral property at Chabbi village and the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 suit schedule land is inherited from propositus Doddabasappa. But the plaintiffs were allotted to lands at Chabbi village and the suit schedule land is situated in the Mevundi village and it has been allotted to the share of defendants as per the partition at Ex.D16. Accordingly, the said partition is effected and entered into revenue records as Mutation Entry No.184/2004-05 dated 29.03.2005. Therefore, when this being the fact, defendant No.1 has become owner and having title over the suit schedule land. But this oral and documentary evidence are not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. 15. Further it is submitted that the partition is effected as per Ex.D16 and consequent mutation entry is dated 29.03.2005, but the suit is filed on 06.04.2016, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Further, the name of defendant No.1 is continued in the revenue records. Therefore, there is presumptive value and for rebutting of this presumption, there is no evidence by the plaintiffs. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 When the defendants are in possession over the suit schedule land, as it is proved from the revenue records, then mere suit for declaration without claiming relief of possession is not maintainable as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Further it is submitted that Ex.D3-Mutation entry is not challenged. Therefore, the Trial Court has not considered all these aspects, which resulting in passing of erroneous judgment and decree. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that Mallappa is son of Doddabasappa, but not Doddabaramappa. The Trial Court while answering issue No.4 has correctly answered that the defendants have failed to prove their relationship with the plaintiff’s family and the defendants have not pleaded in the written statement regarding the genealogy what is shown for the first time while arguing the appeal. Further it is submitted that from Ex.D16-M.E. extract, partition is - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 not proved and from the evidence of DW.2 to DW.7 prior partition is not proved, which is rightly held by the Trial Court. There is no evidence to prove the pleadings in paragraph No.16 of the written statement, which is correctly answered by the Trial Court. Therefore, reasons assigned are not believable besides from the evidence of the witnesses and the relationship of defendants and plaintiffs is not proved. Thus, submitted that the Trial Court has correctly decreed the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 17. Heard arguments from both sides and perused records. The following points arise for consideration: i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant No.1 proves that there were partitions in the family of plaintiffs and defendants as per Ex.D16, that the lands in Chabbi village were allotted to the plaintiffs and the suit schedule land was allotted to defendant No.1, thus, defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit schedule land? ii) Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires any interference of this Court? - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 18. The plaintiffs have stated genealogy as below in the plaint: Doddabasappa Mallappa Basavantappa Bharamappa Eshwarappa (P6) (P7) Kasturavva Drakshanavva Jayavva Mahadevi Sharanappa (P2) (P3) (P4) (P5) (P1) 19. The defendants in the written statement at paragraph No.16 stated the genealogy in description that the father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 namely Basavantappa and plaintiffs No.6 and 7 are brothers, being son of Mallappa. Though the defendants have not given drawing of genealogy, but during the course of argument, filed a synopsis saying below is the genealogy: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 Doddabasappa Doddabharamappa Sanna bharamappa Honkareppa Channabasappa Mallappa Jangaleppa Basavantappa Bharamappa Eshwarappa Mudakappa (P6) (P7) (D1) Kasturavva Drakshanavva Jayavva Mahadevi Sharanappa Malleshappa (P2) (P3) (P4) (P5) (P1) (D2) 20. As per plaintiffs, Mallappa is son of Doddabasappa @ Bharamappa Ari who is the original propositus. But as per defendants, the original propositus is Doddabasappa who has four sons namely, Doddabharamappa, Sannabharamappa, Honkareppa and Channabasappa. Honkareppa and Channabasappa died issueless. It is stated that Doddabharamappa has one son by name Mallappa and Sannabharamappa has one son by name Jangaleppa. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 21. This is the difference in genealogy placed by both the plaintiffs and defendants. Both plaintiffs and defendants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove these genealogies. The difference in the genealogy stated by plaintiffs and defendants are that, as per plaintiffs, Mallappa’s father was Doddabasappa. But as per defendants, Mallappa’s father was Doddabharamappa. In this regard, when this being their respective pleadings and there is no supportive documents proving genealogy, then the oral evidence of the parties could be considered. The PW-1 while giving evidence, in the course of cross- examination, PW-1 admitted that the original propositus is one Doddabasappa as true. But PW-1 in the cross- examination, has given a vague answers by answering to the questions as he does not know to the questions posed by the defendants that Doddabasappa has four sons by name Doddabharamappa, Sannabharamappa, Honkareppa and Channabasappa. The way in which the answers given by PW-1 in the cross-examination that, by saying he does - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 not know the questions posed by defendants regarding the above said four sons are children of Doddabasappa. PW-1 has given answer as he does not know that Mallappa is son of Doddabharamappa and Jangaleppa is son of Sannabharamappa. When as per plaintiffs, it is definite case of plaintiffs that, Mallappa is son of Doddabasappa then, upon the questions posed by defendants that Mallappa is son of Doddabharamappa, the plaintiffs would have stated that Mallappa is not son of Doddabharamappa but without saying so, the answer given is, he does not know. Therefore, by perusing the demeanor of witness PW-1, wherever inconvenient questions are posed to the PW-1, PW-1 has given vague answers as he does not know. Therefore, from this evidence, it is proved that one Doddabasappa is the original propositus but not Mallappa. 22. Further, PW-1 has admitted in the cross- examination that there is no partition of the family properties between Mallappa and Jangaleppa. If at all, according to plaintiffs, Jangaleppa is not considered as - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 family of plaintiffs, then, quite naturally the answer would be there was no occasion for partition between Mallappa and Jangaleppa. But the answer by the PW-1 that, there was no family partition between Mallappa and Jangaleppa. 23. Further, PW-1 has given answer in cross-examination that Sy.No.112/1A and 112/2A situated at Chabbi village were sold out by the plaintiffs to one Basappa Bhima Pujar, but the answer given was he does not know. Therefore, upon considering the demeanor of witness PW1, wherever the questions are asked regarding relations in the family and regarding the properties situated at Chabbi village, PW1 has given vague reply, wherever which are inconvenient to him. When this being the oral evidence, one thing is proved that Doddabasappa is the original propositus but not Mallappa and in this regard, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Mallappa is the original propositus. Whereas, on the contrary, the genealogy stated by the defendants in the written - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 statement at paragraph No.16 is proved that, one Doddabasappa is the original propositus. 24. It is the defence of defendants in the written statement that as per memorandum of partition (vaatni patra)-Ex.D-16, there is partition in the family between plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Ex.D-16 is the document of memorandum of partition stated as “vaatni patra” and as per this Ex.D-16, mutation entries were effected. Ex.D-3 mutation entry was effected on 29.03.2005. As per Ex.D-16, the land situated at Chabbi village, where it is given to the share of plaintiffs and land situated at Mevundi village, which is suit schedule land was given to the share of defendant No.1. This mutation entry was affected on 29.03.2005 as per Exs.D-2 and D-3 and Exs.P- 12 and P-13. DW2 has deposed that there was partition between plaintiffs and defendants and accordingly, reduced into writing as Ex.D-16 and he himself has written and he himself scribe of the sale deed partition. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 25. During course of cross-examination, nothing disbelievable thing is proved from DW-2 regarding execution of memorandum of partition. Further DWs-5, 6, 7 and 8 have deposed that there was partition in the family between plaintiffs and defendants and land situated at Chabbi village were given to the plaintiffs and the suit schedule land was given to the share of the defendant No.1. 26. Upon considering cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing is proved to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, the fact that there was a previous partition as admitted by defendant No.16, is proved. On the basis of this partition, the name of defendant No.1 was mutated continuously in the record of rights, which has presumptive value as per Section 130 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Though the name of defendant No.1 was mutated as per ME No.184/2004-05 dated 29.03.2005, the suit is filed on 06.04.2016 after lapse of 3 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 years, which is barred by limitation as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act. 27. The plaintiffs have not challenged Ex.D-3/ME No.184/2004-05 before the Revenue Authorities; the plaintiffs have kept quiet for all these long years and filed suit on 06.04.2016, thus it is barred by limitation though having knowledge regarding the entry of name of the defendants in the revenue records. When there is rival claim of being in possession by the plaintiffs and defendants, therefore, to prove who is in possession over the property, the only available evidence is Record of Rights pertaining to the suit schedule land. In the record of rights, the names of defendants are shown as they are in possession and cultivating the lands. When this being the fact that the defendants are in possession and cultivating the lands, but the plaintiffs have filed a suit only for declaration and for mandatory injunction without claiming relief of possession. Therefore, the suit filed by - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 the plaintiffs is also not maintainable as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 28. It is the argument canvassed by the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that regarding relationship, whatever the pleadings, genealogy is taken is deposed in the evidence of DW-1, the same is not found in the written statement. Therefore, this evidence could not be taken for consideration, but upon considering the evidence of DW-1 in examination-in-chief and written statement of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 has taken pleading in the written statement that the father of defendant No.1 and plaintiff Nos.6 and 7 are brothers and the evidence filed regarding genealogy deposed in the evidence by DW-1 in examination-in-chief is corroborated in the cross- examination of PW-1 as Doddabasappa is the original propositus. Therefore, whatever the omission in this regard between the pleadings in the written statement and in the evidence of DW-1, the same is found to be a minor discrepancy, but upon considering the entire evidence on - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 record on all its preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that one Doddabasappa is the original propositus and the genealogy shown by the plaintiffs is not correct. When this being the fact as per Exs.D-3, D-16, P-12 and P-13, it is proved that in the partition, the suit schedule land was given share to defendant No.1. Therefore, the trial Court has committed error in appreciating evidence on record in correct and true perspective manner, resulting into erroneous judgment and decree. Therefore, the findings given on issue No.(iv) by the trial Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, defendant No.1 has proved that he is the owner of suit schedule property and accordingly he had executed gift deed in favour of defendant No.2, who is his son. Therefore, execution of gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 is proved to be valid one. 29. Therefore, upon appreciating the evidence on record as above discussed, the trial Court has committed an error in entertaining the suit by decreeing the suit in - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7910 RFA No. 100409 of 2017 favour of plaintiffs, which is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) and (ii) in the affirmative. 30. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 14.09.2017, passed in O.S.No.62/2016 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, is set aside. iii. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed. iv. No order as to costs. v. Draw decree accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs’, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK-para 1 to 8. PMP-para 9 to 17 RKM-para 18 to 25 SRA-para 26 to end CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 64