- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100588 OF 2019 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOURAMMA W/O. SHANKRAPPA SHELUDI, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DEVARAJ NAGAR, ANCHATAGERI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SMT. ADIVEMMA P. ITTIGATTI, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581104. 3. SMT. SAVAKKA W/O. CHANNAPPA ITTIGATTI, SINCE DECEASED RBY LR’S. 3(a) SMT. BASAVVA W/O. CHANNAPPA HALEMANI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ANCHATAGERI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580024. 3(b) SHRI NINGAPPA S/O. CHANNAPPA ITTIGATTI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANCHATAGERI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580024. 3(c) SMT. ANASAVVA W/O. BASAVANTHAPPA SAVANUR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ANCHATAGERI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580024. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 3(d) SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. REVANAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ANCHATAGERI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580024. 3(e) SMT. PREMA D/O. CHANNAPPA ITTIGATTI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ANCHATAGERI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580024. 3(f) SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O. CHANNAPPA ITTIGATTI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANCHATAGERI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580024. 4. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. BASAPPA KUBYAL, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ITTIGATTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-580114. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.G. NANDOOR & SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. NAGAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIS: DHARWAD-581204. 2. NAGAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA ANGADI, DIED R/BY HIS LRS 2(a) NIRMAL W/O. MADIVALAPPA INGALAGI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2(b) MAHADEVI W/O. SHIVAPPA INGALAGI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2(c) SANGAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2(d) ANASUYA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA TIGADI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2(e) CHANNABASAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2(f) MALLIKARJUN S/O. NAGAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. PARASHURAM LAXMAN ARIKERI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAVA AYODHYA NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580024. 4. BASAVARAJ SHIVASHANKRAPPA TERDAL, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANGAL ONI, KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580024. 5. SMT. HANIPABI W/O. MOULASAB JAMMIHAL, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581104. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 6. RAJESAB S/O. MOULASAB JAMMIHAL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581104. 7. SMT. KADARBI W/O. HAMBOOBSAB HANGAL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581104. 8. SMT. MAHABOOBI W/O. IMAMSAB MULLANAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581104. 9. IBRAMSAB MOULASAB JAMMIHAL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581104. 10. SMT. HARAMBI W/O. MUKTUMSAB, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581104. 11. SMT. SHINAJABI W/O. IBRAHIMSAB GUDIHAL @ ASHAMMANAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581104. 12. SMT. RAMEJABI W/O. GAFARSAB JAMMIHAL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581104. 13. SANIYA D/O. GAFARSAB NATURAL MOTHER, RAMEJABI W/O. GAFARSAB JAMMIHAL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 DIST: DHARWAD-581104. 14. GAFARSAB S/O. MOULSAB JAMMIHAL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. F.V. PATIL & SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATES FOR R4; R1-ABATED V/O DATED 26.07.2022; NOTICE TO R2(A) TO (F), R3, R6-SERVED; NOTICE TO R5 & R7 TO R14 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS AND DECREE THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.11/2018, WITH COSTS ALL THROUGHOUT IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANTS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.09.2019 IN O.S.NO.11/2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JDUGE SENIOR DIVISION AND JMFC KALAGHATAGI AND ETC. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in OS No.11/2018 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Kalaghatagi,1 whereby the said suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for declaration and other reliefs came to be dismissed by the trial Court. 2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: (a) The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit inter alia contending that they are the daughters of one late 1 Hereinafter for short ’trial Court’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 Basappa Haliyal, who is said to have expired leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and their sister Smt.Gangavva- defendant No.1 to succeed to his estate including the suit schedule properties. (b) It is contended that the defendant No.2 is the husband of defendant No.1 and he did not have any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule properties. It was further contended that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 took advantage of the situation and created a bogus documents behind the back of the plaintiffs and alienated the suit schedule properties comprising of three items of landed properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 13 by executing sale deeds which are not binding upon the shares of the plaintiffs who instituted the aforesaid suit for partition, declaration and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule properties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 (c) In the matter of record that the suit schedule properties comprised of three items of landed properties viz., a) Sy.No.184/1A measuring 3 acres 15 guntas b) Sy.No.184/1B measuring 2 acres c) Sy.No.184/2 measuring 3 acres 17 guntas While item No.2 was sold by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 13, item No. 3 was sold by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 who in turn sold the same in favour of defendant No.4. Item No.1 continued to stand in the name of defendant No.2, while item Nos.2 and 3 were standing in the name of defendant Nos.4 to 13 at the time of institution of the suit. 4. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 entered appearance, but written statement was filed only on behalf of defendant No.4. The remaining defendants remained absent and were placed exparte. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 5. The defendant No.4 inter alia contended that item No.3 of the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of defendant No.2, who in turn sold the same in favour of defendant No.3 vide registered sale deed dated 04.11.2010 and the defendant No.3 subsequently sold item No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 vide registered sale deed dated 07.07.2011. It was therefore contended that the item No.3 of the suit schedule property was not the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as falsely alleged by them and the suit in relation to this property was liable to be dismissed. 6. The defendant No.4 further contended that the sale deed dated 04.11.2010 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 was also signed by the plaintiffs as consenting witnesses and the said sale deed being a registered document, the plaintiffs were estopped from putting forth of their claim in respect of item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties. It is therefore contended that, the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1) Whether the plaintiff proves that herself and defendant No.1 are the Hindu undivided joint family members and suit properties are their ancestral and joint family properties? 2)Whether the defendant No.4 proves that suit B schedule property was the self acquired property of defendant No.2? 3)Whether the defendant No.4 proves that defendant No.1 and 2 sold said property in favour of one Parashuram S/o. Laxman Arakeri on 04.11.2010? 4) Whether defendant No.4 proves that this defendant is the bonafide purchaser of suit B schedule property from Parashuram Laxman Arakeri on 07.07.2011 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same? 5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the share in the suit property? 6) What order or decree?” 8. Plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.9 were marked. While the defendant Nos.4 and 3 were examined as DW1 and DW2 respectively and documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 and D.6 were marked on their behalf. 9. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs who are before this Court by way of present appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, learned counsel for respondent No.4/defendant No.4 and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs invited our attention to the material on record in order to point out that the suit schedule properties originally owned and possessed by Basappa Haliyal, father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 who are his children, which is evidenced by mutation register extract at Ex.P4 and P5, which indicate that all the suit schedule properties were acquired by the said Basappa Haliyal, in the year 1953. It is submitted that till his demise, the said Basappa Haliyal continued to own and possess the suit schedule properties and upon his demise, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 succeeded to the suit schedule properties and each of them are entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. It - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 is also submitted that the defendant No.2, taking advantage of the fact that he was the husband of the defendant No.1 got the Khata changed to his name and illegally alienated the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.3, 5 to 13 and while retaining the Khata in respect of item No.1 in his own name and consequently, the appellants/plaintiffs were entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs deserves to be decreed in their favour. 12. It is submitted that though defendant No.4 contends that the sale deed dated 04.11.2010, shows the name of the plaintiffs as consenting witnesses, the plaintiffs have in fact not signed the said document and the suggestion in this regard given to PW1 was specifically denied by her and the Trial Court erred in accepting the said document and non-suiting the plaintiffs and the impugned - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 judgment and decree deserves to be set aside on this ground also. 13. Thirdly, it was contended that, since the suit schedule properties originally stood in the name of their father Basappa Haliyal, as can be seen from Ex.P4 and P5, in the absence of any material to establish as to how defendant No.2 acquired right over the suit schedule properties, the Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit and the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside on this ground also. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4/defendant No.4 would support the impugned judgment and decree and submit that except producing Ex.P4 and P5 which have came into existence in the year 1953, subsequent documents including transactions, revenue records, survey records, etc., have not been produced by the plaintiffs so as to indicate that their father Basappa Haliyal continued to retain any right over the suit schedule - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 properties and the long and inordinate absence of the name of the father of the plaintiffs and/or the plaintiffs being found in the revenue records or any other document pertaining to the suit schedule properties would lead to the inference that neither the said Basappa Haliyal nor the plaintiffs would have any right over the suit schedule properties. She would invite our attention to Ex.D3 registered sale deed dated 04.11.2010 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 to which the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 have affixed their signatures as consenting witnesses in order to contend that the very conduct of the plaintiffs in affixing their signatures as consenting witnesses at the request of the purchaser of substantial portion of the property would indicate that the plaintiffs are estopped from putting forth any claim over item No.3 of the suit schedule properties. That the Trial Court was correct in rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs. 15. It is also submitted that in the said sale deed dated 04.11.2010, the vendor/defendant No.2 has traced - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 his title to the suit schedule properties as having purchased the same from one Moulasab Rajesab Jammihal, which also indicates that Basappa Haliyal, the father of plaintiffs had not retained any right over item No.3 of the suit schedule properties and the claim of the plaintiffs is to be rejected on this ground also. It is therefore submitted that, there is no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to the dismissed. 16. The following points would arise for consideration in the present appeal: i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties were not the joint family properties of the plaintiffs’ and defendant No.1. ii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties were the separate and self acquired properties of the defendant No.2. iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal? - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 Regarding point Nos.1, 2 and 3: 17. Since these points are interlinked, they are taken up together for consideration. 18. Perusal of the material on record will indicate that relationship between the parties is not in dispute being that the plaintiffs are the sisters of defendant No.1, whose husband is defendant No.2 and the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the children of Late Basappa Haliyal. Interestingly the date of demise of late Basappa Haliyal is not forthcoming either in the plaint or in the evidence and the defendant No.1 and her husband defendant No.2 remained exparte and did not choose to contest the suit; so also the said defendant Nos.1 and 2 have remained unrepresented in the present appeal also. 19. In this context it is pertinent to note that, in order to establish that the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 the plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.4 and P.5, mutation register extract which indicate that late Basappa Haliyal is purported to have purchased the suit schedule properties on 12.06.1953 and 19.07.1953. However, the subsequent revenue records, survey records and mutation register extracts, tax paid receipts, etc., are conspicuously absent and not forthcoming or produced by the appellants/plaintiffs so as to establish that the Basappa Haliyal retained the suit schedule properties even after 1953 and/or that the same continued to retain with him and his name, and thereafter, the suit schedule properties were succeeded by the appellants/plaintiffs after the demise of Basappa Haliyal. 20. On the other hand, the revenue records produced at Ex.P1 to P3 and Ex.D1 and the mutation register extracts at Ex.D.5 will indicate that in the year 2010, the revenue records in relation to the suit schedule properties were standing in the name of defendant No.2. Absolutely no explanation whatsoever is offered or forthcoming by the plaintiffs either in their pleadings or in - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 their evidence, so as to explain the long gap of time between 1953 to 2018 during which period nothing is produced to show that the properties remained or was retained by Basappa Haliyal or his family members including the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. In other words, there is a complete and total absence of any record comprising of revenue records, survey records, tax paid receipts etc., to show the continuity of properties belonging to family of the appellants/plaintiffs and respondent No.1/defendant No.1 till the same was sold by defendant No.2 in the year 2010. 21. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties did not belong to the alleged joint family of plaintiffs/appellants and defendant No.1 and thereby non-suiting the plaintiffs in this regard. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 and did not contest the suit; so also except defendant No.4 who was the alianee in relation to item No.2 of the suit schedule properties, defendant Nos.5 to 3 who were the alianee in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties had also remained exparte and did not contest the suit in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 and as such, the evidence on record produced by the appellants/plaintiffs in relation to item Nos.1 and 2 should be accepted and the suit in this regard ought to have been decreed by the Trial Court. 23. In our considered opinion, this contention does not deserve to be accepted inasmuchas, as stated supra, except producing Ex.P4 and P5 - mutation register extract which indicate that the properties stood in the name of Basappa Haliyal as long back as from 12.06.1953 and 19.07.1953 no other documents, records, etc., have been produced to show continued ownership or possession from that time until the filing of the suit. On the contrary, from the year 2010 onwards, the records stand in the name of - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 defendant No.2 and subsequent alianees. Under these circumstances, the said contention urged on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs cannot be accepted. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the burden of proving issue No.2 was on the defendant No.4 to establish that the item No.3 of the suit schedule property was separate and self acquired property of defendant No.2 who had remained exparte and the defendant No.4 had not produced any legal or acceptable evidence in this regard. 25. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the light of specific assertion on the part of the appellants/plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties, notwithstanding the fact that the claim of defendant No.4 was restricted/limited only to item No.3 of the suit schedule properties, and remaining defendants have placed exparte, issue No.1 cast the burden - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 upon the plaintiffs to prove all the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties. 26. It is well settled that merely because the defendants remained exparte and does not contest the suit, the said circumstance would not obviate or dispense with the initial burden of proving that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties which rests on the appellants/plaintiffs and as stated supra, so long as the appellants/plaintiffs did not discharge the said burden by leading any legal or acceptable evidence except producing Ex.P4 and P5, which are of the year 1953 and would not show continuity of the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs, we are of the view that merely because the defendant No.4 was concerned only about item No.3 and remaining defendants were placed exparte, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis or relied upon by the plaintiffs to contend that the suit in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 is to be decreed in their favour and consequently, this contention urged on behalf of the plaintiffs cannot be accepted. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11133-DB RFA No. 100588 of 2019 27. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs in upholding the claim of defendant No.4/respondent No.4 by passing impugned judgment and decree which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. 28. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB-upto para 3(b) SMM-3 (c) to end CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20