- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2010 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. 1(A) SMT. KAMALAMMAL @ KAMALAMMA W/O LATE B.K. NARAYANASWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY LR SRI. RAMASWAMY S/O LATE B.K. NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT. KAMALAMMAL @ KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO. 18/1, OLD BYAPPANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 033. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHAIK SARDAR S/O SHAIK DADAR SAB MAJOR SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1(A) SMT. HASMATH UNIS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O LATE SHAIK SARDAR 1(B) SRI. S. REHMAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE SHAIK SARDAR Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 1(C) SRI. S. RAHIM AGED AOBUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE SHAIK SARDAR 1(D) SMT. HASEENA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O LATE SHAIK SARDAR 1(E) SMT. S. FIRDOSE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O LATE SHAIK SARDAR ALL ARE RESIDING AT H.L.NO.2 SY.NO.29, NEAR MAHESWARIAMMA TEMPLE OLD BYAPPANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 033. 2. SMT. ASMAT UNNISA W/O SHAIK SARDAR MAJOR R1 AND R2 R/AT H.L.NO.2, SY.NO.29 NEAR MAHESWARIAMMA TEMPLE OLD BYAPPANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 033. 3. SMT. THANJAMMAL ALIAS RANI D/O LATE B.K.NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT. KAMALAMMAL @ KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS NO.66, OSEBEN ROAD CONTONMENT, BANGALORE-560 033. 4. SMT. B.N. RAJAMMAL @ RAJESHWARI D/O LATE B.K.NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT. KAMALAMMAL @ KAMALAMMA W/O SRI. GIRIRAJ AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS NO.1889, 8TH CROSS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 HAL 3RD STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA BANGALORE-560 075. 5. SRI. B.N.MOHAN S/O LATE B.K.NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT. KAMALAMMAL @ KAMALAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 5(I) SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O LATE B.N.MOHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 5(II) SRI. SARAVANA KUMAR S/O LATE B.N.MOHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 5(III) SMT. MAHESHWARI D/O LATE B.N.MOHAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 5(IV) SRI. SELVARAJ S/O LATE B.N.MOHAN AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.30 OLD BYAPPANAHALLI, 3RD CROSS NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE M.S. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 033. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.A. HUMAYUN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R1(A - D & F); SRI. H.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R5(I TO IV); R4 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; V/O/D 05.03.2019 R1(E) DELETED FROM THE APPLICATION) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDSER XXXXI RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED23.11.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.2371/2000 ON THE FILE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 28), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2009 passed in O.S.No.2371/2000 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-28), whereby the plaintiff's suit seeking possession from the defendants is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish her title over the suit schedule property. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in O.S.No.2371/2000. 3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under; The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession alleging that she has acquired title over the suit schedule property comprising of a house and a vacant site, which is the part - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 and parcel of Sy. No.29. The plaintiff asserts that based on an oral understanding and on payment of rent at the rate of ₹200/- per month, she inducted the defendants into the suit schedule property. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants are licensees in possession of the property. Therefore, the present suit is filed seeking recovery of possession on the ground that defendants are in unauthorised possession and are, therefore, also liable to pay damages at the rate of ₹1,000/- per month commencing from 01.04.2000 till possession of the schedule property is handed over to the plaintiff. The suit is filed seeking direction against the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. 4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants on the contrary asserted that suit schedule property was owned by one A.M.Ramamurthy Mudaliar and the then - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 Government of Mysore had acquired entire extent of 4 acres 11 guntas in Sy. No.29, while this portion was intact and defendants occupied the building in Sy. No.29 measuring 25 feet x 50 feet and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The defendant No.2 has also filed a suit in O.S.No.15690/2000 seeking declaration of title by way of adverse possession. 6. Both the suits were clubbed together. The parties have led in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.2371/2000 on the ground that plaintiffs have not established their title and in absence of seeking declaration of title, the present suit for possession is not maintainable. 7. The suit filed by the defendant No.2 was also dismissed. The defendants did not choose to challenge the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 decree of dismissal passed in O.S.No.15690/2000. The plaintiff in O.S.No.2371/2000 is before this Court assailing the dismissal of the suit. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and defendants. This Court has also meticulously examined the pleadings and the records and the oral and documentary evidence. 9. The following points would arise for consideration:- (i) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate her title over the suit schedule property and therefore, mere suit for possession without seeking a declaration of title is not maintainable suffers from perversity and warrants interference? (ii) Whether the additional evidence now produced by the plaintiff needs to be admitted and recorded for effective adjudication of the plaintiff's right to seek possession in the present suit? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 (iii) What order? Findings on point No.(i):- 10. Though several documents have been produced by the parties, a careful perusal of Exs.D.1 and D.2 clearly indicates that the suit schedule property forms part of an Inam land. This aspect is not seriously in dispute. Notwithstanding the admitted character of the land as an Inam land, the plaintiff claims title by tracing it through one Narayanaswamy, who is stated to have executed a sale deed in favour of Dodda Abbaiah, and the said Dodda Abbaiah is said to have subsequently conveyed the suit schedule property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed. In order to substantiate her claim of ownership and consequential entitlement to seek recovery of possession, the plaintiff has primarily relied upon the sale deed executed in her favour and has produced a copy of the said document in evidence. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 11. The defendants, however, have sought to rebut the plaintiff’s claim by placing reliance on documentary evidence marked as Ex.D.1, which assumes considerable significance in determining the nature of the land and the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s title. A perusal of Ex.D.1 reveals that one A.M. Ramamurthy Mudaliar, describing himself as the Inamdar, had filed an application seeking registration as an occupant under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1954”). The application submitted by the said A.M. Ramamurthy Mudaliar is evidenced at Ex.D.2, wherein he sought registration of occupancy rights in respect of several lands, which include Survey No.29, the survey number in which the present suit schedule property is situated. 12. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to advert to the statutory scheme of the Act, 1954. Section 3 of the Act, 1954 provides for the vesting of all Inam lands in the State Government, free from all encumbrances, from the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 date of abolition. Such vesting is statutory and automatic, operating by force of law, and has the effect of extinguishing all pre-existing rights, titles, and interests held by the Inamdar or any intermediary in respect of the Inam lands, subject of course to the rights of persons who may subsequently be registered as occupants under the provisions of the Act. 13. Therefore, in the light of the statutory vesting contemplated under Section 3 of the Act, 1954, the documents produced by the defendants at Exs.D.1 and D.2 assume direct and substantial relevance in examining the validity of the plaintiff’s claim of title. These documents throw light on the nature of the land, the claim of the Inamdar for occupancy rights, and the proceedings initiated under the statutory regime governing Inam abolition. Hence, it would be apposite for this Court to refer to the contents of Exs.D.1 and D.2, which have a direct bearing on the adjudication of the plaintiff’s claim. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 14. Accordingly, the relevant portions of the documents marked as Exs.D.1 and D.2 are extracted hereunder. Ex-D1 "BEFORE THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR INAM ABOLITION Bengalore Case No.5 Petitioner : A.M.Rama Murthy, Inamdar of Vimanapura Vs. Respondent: Government Subject: Occupancy rights in respect of land S.Nos. 66, 110, 29, 36, 38, 61, 71, 83, 42/3 and 57 of the above village. Order All the above survey numbers are reserved lands which have to vest in Government under Sec. 3(1)(b) of Inam Abolition Act, which reads as follows:- "All rights, title and interest vesting in the Inamdar including those in all communal lands, cultivated lands, uncultivated lands, whether assessed or not, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be vested - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 absolutely in the State of Mysore, free from all encumbrances." In the result, the claim of the petitioner to all the above survey numbers is rejected as all the lands have to be treated as reserved lands which must vest in Government. Claim for S.No. 62/4, 0-17, assessed at 0-12-0. The above survey number is not covered by any of the prohibitions mentioned sub-clauses (i) (ii) and (iii) of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec.9 of the Act. Hence, the Inamdar petitioner is registered as occupant of the above S.No. under Sec.9 of the Act." Ex-D2 "A.M RAMAMURTHY, B.A., Kayamguthadhar of Bypanhally. The Special Amildar Inams Abolition Bangalore District, Bangalore. Sir, Re- Kayamgutha Bypanhally village - Krishnarajapura hobli, Bangalore Taluk . . . According to the notification No.R.8347-LS-63-56- 9, dated 15th September 1956 Kayamgutha Bypanhally - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 Village, now stated to be known as Vimanapur Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore Taluq, vest in the Government. I am entitled to become the Registered Occupant of the Survey number mentioned hereunder in the aforesaid Jodi Bypanhally Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore Taluq. The lands bearing the Survey Numbers mentioned hereunder may be registered in my name. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- (A.M. Ramamurthy) DETAILS Survey No.66. Karab Land Acre - guntas 23. " " 110. Dry Land " nil - " 16. " " 29. Kana Lands. " 4. - " 11. " " 62/4. Dry lands " nil - " 17. " " 36. Bande- " nil - " 14. " " 38. Kutte. " nil. " 29. " " 61. Tank " 8 " 9. " " 71. Manure pit. " 2 " 1. " " 83. Manure pit. " nil. " 11. " " 42/3 Cemetry " nil. " 7. " " 57. Cemetry " nil. " 14. Total Area - 18 acres and 32 guntas. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 In Survey No.66 - 10 tamarind Tress. In the village site 9 tamaring Tress. In S.No.29 - 1 Banian tree, 1 Goni tree, 2 Hippa trees. Aswath kattes - 2. The trees and the aswathkattes noted above to be registered in my name. Sd/- (A.M. Ramamurthy) 15. On a careful examination of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, it becomes manifest that Survey No.29 is classified as an Inam land. The material on record clearly indicates that the said land formed part of the Inam grant governed by the provisions of “the Act, 1954”. The documents further reveal that the Inamdar, A.M.Ramamurthy Mudaliar, had filed an application seeking registration of occupancy rights under Section 9 of the Act, 1954. The very fact that such an application was filed under Section 9 unmistakably demonstrates that the land in question had already vested in the State Government by operation of law upon the coming into force of the Act, 1954, and that the Inamdar - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 was seeking to secure occupancy rights in accordance with the statutory scheme contemplated under the Act. 16. However, the order extracted supra further discloses that though A.M. Ramamurthy Mudaliar, claiming to be the Inamdar, had indeed filed an application seeking registration as an occupant, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams rejected the said application insofar as it related to Survey No.29. Consequently, the claim of the Inamdar for occupancy rights in respect of the said survey number did not find favour with the competent authority under the Act. 17. The rejection of an application seeking registration as an occupant under the provisions of the Act, 1954 carries with it significant legal consequences. Once an Inam land stands vested in the State Government under Section 3 of the Act, such vesting is absolute and free from all encumbrances, subject only to the rights that may subsequently be conferred upon eligible persons - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 through registration as occupants under the statutory scheme. When the application of the Inamdar seeking such registration is rejected, the inevitable consequence is that the land continues to remain vested in the Government. In such circumstances, neither the Inamdar nor any person claiming through or under him can assert any independent right, title, or interest over the land that has so vested in the Government by operation of law pursuant to the abolition of Inams. 18. The mere production of title deeds, including a registered sale deed, does not by itself confer title upon the plaintiff unless the plaintiff is able to demonstrate that the vendor possessed a valid and lawful title capable of being conveyed in accordance with law. It is well settled that a document of transfer, though duly registered, is only evidence of a transaction and does not automatically establish title unless the transferor had a lawful and subsisting interest in the property. The burden, therefore, squarely lies on the plaintiff to establish not merely the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 execution of the sale deed but also the lawful source of title of the vendor. 19. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the principles embodied in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act stipulates that a transfer of property can be effected only by a person who is competent to transfer and who is entitled to transfer the property or authorized to dispose of transferable property. Thus, the very foundation of a valid transfer lies in the existence of a lawful right, title, or interest in the transferor. If the transferor himself has no legally recognized title, the conveyance executed by him cannot operate to pass any valid title to the transferee. 20. Further, Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a transfer of property passes to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is capable of passing in the property. The statutory language makes it abundantly clear that the transferee can acquire only - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 such interest as the transferor lawfully possesses. In other words, the transferee cannot acquire a better or higher title than that held by the transferor. 21. Applying these settled principles to the present case, even though the plaintiff has produced his sale deed and, by way of additional evidence, the sale deed dated 14.08.1959 executed in favour of his vendor, the production of these documents does not, by itself, establish a valid title. The fundamental issue that continues to linger and remains unanswered is whether the vendor’s vendor had any lawful title or authority to convey the property in the first place. 22. This question assumes greater significance in the backdrop of the admitted fact that the suit schedule property forms part of an Inam land. Under the provisions of "the Act, 1954", particularly Section 3, all Inam lands stood vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances upon the abolition of the Inam tenure. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 23. Therefore, once the land stood vested in the Government by virtue of the statutory mandate, no private individual could have validly conveyed title in respect of such land unless such person had subsequently acquired lawful rights under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. In the absence of any material indicating that the plaintiff’s vendor or the vendor’s predecessor had obtained occupancy rights or any other legally recognized interest under the said Act, the chain of private conveyances relied upon by the plaintiff cannot, in the eye of law, confer a valid title. 24. Viewed from this perspective, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff merely demonstrate a series of private transactions. However, these transactions do not answer the fundamental legal question as to how title could have been lawfully derived from land which had already vested in the Government by operation of law. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the transferor had a valid and subsisting title capable of being - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 conveyed, as required under Sections 7 and 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and therefore the claim of title founded upon such conveyances cannot be sustained in law. 25. In the present case, though the plaintiff has relied upon the sale deed produced and marked as Ex.P.2 in order to establish her title over the suit schedule property, the mere production of such a sale deed cannot, by itself, confer a valid title if the vendor himself had no lawful title to convey. The plaintiff claims title through Dodda Abbaiah, who in turn is stated to have derived title from Narayanaswamy. However, the record is conspicuously silent as to the manner in which Narayanaswamy could have acquired any right, title, or lawful possession over the land forming part of Survey No.29, which, as already discussed, is admittedly an Inam land that had vested in the Government under the provisions of the ”Act, 1954". There is absolutely no material placed on record to demonstrate that - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 Narayanaswamy or any of the predecessors in the alleged chain of title had been registered as occupants or had otherwise acquired any lawful right over the said land in accordance with the statutory provisions governing Inam lands. 26. It is a well-settled principle of property law that a transferee cannot acquire a better title than that possessed by his vendor. If the vendor himself does not hold a valid and subsisting title to the property, the transferee cannot, by virtue of a sale deed or any other instrument of transfer, acquire a superior or independent title. In the present case, when the land forming part of Survey No.29 is established to be an Inam land vested in the Government, no private individual could have conveyed title in respect of such land unless lawful occupancy rights had been granted under the provisions of the "Act, 1954". - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 27. In the absence of any material demonstrating that such rights were ever conferred upon Narayanaswamy or upon any person in the alleged chain of title leading to the plaintiff, the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff cannot be regarded as a valid source of title. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to establish lawful title over the suit schedule property. In the absence of proof of title, the plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for recovery of possession by asserting ownership over the property in question. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the "Negative". Findings on point No.(ii):- 28. The plaintiff has filed an application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence in the present appeal. The documents which the plaintiff proposes to produce as additional evidence include: (i) the true copy of the sale deed dated 14.08.1959 said to have been executed by B.K. Narayanaswamy in favour of Dodda - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 Abbaiah; (ii) the order dated 30.05.1998 passed by the jurisdictional Tahasildar relating to the revenue site; (iii) the Mutation Register Extract bearing No.114/67–68 pertaining to the assessment year 1962–63; (iv) the Tax Paid Receipt dated 21.10.1965; and (v) the Encumbrance Certificates covering the period from 1959 to 1989. By seeking to place these documents on record, the plaintiff intends to strengthen the chain of title traced through her vendor and thereby substantiate her claim of ownership over the suit schedule property. 29. However, in the light of the findings already recorded by this Court while answering Point No.(i), this Court is of the considered view that the additional evidence now sought to be produced does not have any material bearing on the controversy involved in the present case. While the plaintiff has attempted to rely on the sale deed executed by her vendor in order to demonstrate the source of title, the fundamental issue that arises for consideration is of a different nature. The crucial - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 question that still remains unanswered is as to how a private individual could have validly conveyed title in respect of land which is admittedly an Inam land that stood vested in the State Government by operation of law under the provisions of the "Act, 1954". 30. Even if the sale deed dated 14.08.1959 and the other accompanying documents are taken into consideration, they would merely indicate a chain of private transactions or certain revenue entries. Such documents, by themselves, cannot establish a valid title when the very land in question had already vested in the Government under the statutory scheme governing the abolition of Inams. The production of these documents does not address the core legal impediment arising from the statutory vesting of the land in the Government, nor do they demonstrate that the vendor or any predecessor in the alleged chain of title had acquired lawful rights over the land under the provisions of the "Act, 1954". - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 31. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that she derives title through any person who had been registered as an occupant or otherwise conferred with lawful rights under the provisions of the "Act, 1954". In the absence of such a foundational claim, the additional documents sought to be produced whether they relate to sale transactions, mutation entries, tax receipts, or encumbrance certificates cannot confer legitimacy upon the plaintiff’s claim of title. These documents do not have the effect of curing the fundamental defect in the plaintiff’s case, namely the absence of any lawful transfer of title from a person who had a valid and subsisting right over the Inam land. 32. Further, it is well settled that additional evidence at the appellate stage can be permitted only in limited circumstances contemplated under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely where the appellate court requires such evidence to pronounce judgment, or where the party seeking to produce the evidence - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 establishes that despite due diligence such evidence could not be produced before the trial court. The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the documents now sought to be produced satisfy any of the conditions prescribed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. More importantly, the documents sought to be produced do not have any real or substantial relevance to the decisive issue that has already been determined by this Court while answering Point No.(i). 33. Having regard to these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiff neither satisfies the statutory requirements under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC nor has any bearing on the adjudication of the dispute in the present appeal. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to take cognizance of the additional documents sought to be produced. Accordingly, Point No.(ii) is answered in the “Negative.” - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15093 RFA No. 507 of 2010 34. Findings on Point No.(iii):- For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. (ii) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32