Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4702 OF 2004

Union of India and others … Appellants

Versus

Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society  Ltd. and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The  Vasavi  Co-op.  Housing  Society  Ltd.,  the  first  

respondent herein instituted a suit No.794 of 1988 before  

the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration of  

title  over  land comprising  6  acres  30 guntas  in  Survey  

No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village and recovery of the  

vacant possession from Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7, the  

appellants  herein,  after  removal  of  the  structure  made  

therein  by  them.  The  plaintiff  has  also  sought  for  an

Page 2

2

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with  

the  above-mentioned  land  and  also  for  other  

consequential  refliefs.   The  City  Civil  Court  vide  its  

judgment dated 31.07.1996 decreed the suit,  as prayed  

for,  against  which  the  appellants  preferred  C.C.C.A.  

No.123 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh  

at Hyderabad.  The High Court also affirmed the judgment  

of  the  trial  Court  on  6.9.2002,  but  noticed  that  the  

appellant had made large scale construction of quarters  

for the Defence Accounts Department, therefore, it would  

be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be given to  

the  appellants  to  provide  alternative  suitable  extent  of  

land in lieu of the  scheduled suit land, for which eight  

months’ time was granted from the date of the judgment.  

Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India and others have  

filed the present appeal.

FACTS

2. The plaintiff’s case is that it had purchased the land  

situated in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 of Kakaguda Village  

from Pattedar B.M. Rama Reddy and his sons and others  

during the year 1981-82.  The suit land in question forms

Page 3

3

part of Survey Nos.60 and 61.  The suit land in question  

belonged to  the family  of  B.  Venkata Narasimha Reddy  

consisting of himself and his sons Anna Reddy, B.V. Pulla  

Reddy  and  B.M.  Rama  Reddy  and  Anna  Reddy’s  son  

Prakash Reddy.  Land in old Survey No.53 was allotted to  

Rama  Reddy  vide  registered  family  settlement  and  

partition  deed  dated  11.12.1939  (Ex.A2).   In  the  

subsequent  re-settlement  of  village  (Setwar  of  1353  

FASLI),  the  land  in  Survey  No.53  was  re-numbered  as  

Survey No.60, 61 and 62.  Ever since the allotment in the  

family  partition  of  the  above-mentioned  land,  vide  the  

family partition deed dated 19.03.1939, Rama Reddy had  

been  in  exclusive  possession  and  enjoyment  and  was  

paying  land  revenue.  Rama  Reddy’s  name  was  also  

mutated in the Pahanies.

3. Plaintiffs further stated that the first defendant had  

it’s A.O.C. Centre building complex in Tirumalagiri village  

adjoining the suit land Survey No.60 of Kakaguda village.  

The first defendant had also requisitioned 4 acres and 28  

guntas in Survey No.60 of Kakaguda Village in the year

Page 4

4

1971  along  with  the  adjoining  land  in  Tirumalagiri  for  

extension of A.O.C. Centre.  Further, it was stated that 6 th  

Defendant took possession of the above-mentioned land  

and delivered possession of the same to other defendants.  

The 3rd Defendant later vide his letter dated 18.12.1979  

sent a requisition for acquisition of 4.38 guntas in Surevy  

No.60 for the extension of A.O.C. Centre.  Notification was  

published in the official Gazette dated 18.09.1980 and a  

declaration was made on 30.06.1981 and compensation  

was  awarded  to  Rama  Reddy  vide  Award  dated  

26.07.1982.

4. The  Plaintiffs,  as  already  stated,  had  entered  into  

various  sale  deeds  with  Rama  Reddy  during  the  year  

1981-82 by which land measuring 13 acres and 08 guntas  

in Survey No.60, 11 acres and 04 guntas in Survey No.61  

and  17  acres  and  20  guntas  in  Survey  No.62  were  

purchased, that is in all 41 acres and 32 guntas. Plaintiffs  

further stated that the land, which was purchased by it  

was  vacant,  but  persons  of  the  Defence  Department  

started making some marking on the portions of the land

Page 5

5

purchased  by  the  plaintiff,  stating  that  a  substantial  

portion of  the land purchased by the plaintiff  in  Survey  

No.60/1 and 61 belonged to the Defence Department and  

treated as B-4 in their records.  Plaintiff then preferred an  

application  dated  12.09.1983  to  the  District  Collector  

under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act for demarcation  

of boundaries.  Following that, Deputy Director of Survey  

issued a notice dated 21.01.1984 calling upon the plaintiff  

and  3rd Defendant  to  attend  to  the  demarcation  on  

25.01.1984.  Later, a joint survey was conducted.  The 3rd  

Defendant stated that land to the extent of 4 acres and 35  

guntas in Survey No.60 and 61 corresponds to their G.L.R.  

(General Land Register) No.445 and it is their land as per  

the  record.   The  Deputy  Director  of  Survey,  however,  

stated that lands in Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Kakaguda  

village are patta lands as per the settlement records and  

vacant, abutting Tirumalagiri village boundaries to Military  

Pillers and not partly covered in Survey No.60.  Plaintiff  

later filed an application for issuing of a certificate as per  

the plan prepared by the Revenue Records under Section  

19(v) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act.  Plaintiff further stated

Page 6

6

that  pending  that  application,  officers  of  Garrison  

Engineers, on the direction of the 3rd Defendant, illegally  

occupied land measuring 2 acres and 29 guntas in Survey  

No.60 and 4 acres and 01 guntas in Survey No.61.  Thus, a  

total extent of land 6 acres and 30 guntas was encroached  

upon and construction was effected despite the protest by  

the  plaintiff.   Under  such  circumstances,  the  plaintiff  

preferred  the  present  suit,  the  details  of  which  have  

already been stated earlier.

5. The 3rd Defendant filed a written statement stating  

that an area of land measuring 7 acres and 51 guntas, out  

of Survey No.1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village comprising  

G.L.R. Survey No.445 of Cantonment belongs to the first  

Defendant,  which  is  locally  managed and possessed by  

Defendant No.3 being local  representative of  Defendant  

No.1  and  D-3  and  is  also  the  custodian  of  all  defence  

records.  Further, it was also stated that, as per the G.L.R.,  

the said land was classified as B-4 and placed under the  

management  of  Defence  Estates  Officer.   It  was  also  

stated that the suit land is part of review Survey Nos.60

Page 7

7

and 61 and the plaintiff is wrongly claiming that the said  

land was purchased by it.  Further, it was also stated that  

the  plaintiff  is  threatening  to  encroach  upon  another  6  

guntas of land alleged to be situated in Survey Nos.60/1  

and 61.  It has been categorically stated that, as per the  

records maintained by the 3rd Defendant, land measuring  

7  acres  and  51  guntas,  forming  part  of  G.L.R.  Survey  

No.445 of the Cantonment is part of Survey Nos.1, 60 and  

61  of  Kakaguda  village.   It  is  owned,  possessed  and  

enjoyed by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 7.

6. The plaintiff, in order to establish its claim, examined  

PWs 1 to 4 and produced Exs. A-1 to A-85 and Exs. X-1 to  

X-10 besides Exs.  A-86 to  A-89 on behalf  of  DW1.   On  

behalf of the defendants DW1 was examined and Exs D-1  

to D-7 are produced.

7. The primary issue which came up for consideration  

before the trial  court  was  whether  the plaintiff  has  got  

ownership  and  possession  over  6  acres  and  30  guntas  

covered by Survey No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village for  

which considerable reliance was placed on the settlement

Page 8

8

record (Setwar Ex.A-3 of 1353 Fasli).  On the other hand,  

the  defendants  placed  considerable  reliance  on  G.L.R.  

Survey No.445 of the Cantonment which is part of Survey  

No.1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village, wherein, according  

to  the  defendants,  the suit  land falls.  PW2,  the Deputy  

Inspector of Survey stated, according to Setwar,  land in  

Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 is patta land of Prakash Reddy  

and others and such Survey numbers corresponds to Old  

Survey No.53.  The evidence of PW-3 and 4 also states  

that the land is covered by old Survey No.53 which figures  

in  Survey  Nos.60,  61  and  62.   Ext.  A-3  Setwar,  is  a  

settlement register prepared by the Survey Officer at the  

time of revised survey and settlement in the year 1358  

Fasli in which the names of the predecessors in title of the  

plaintiff are shown as pattedars.  In other words, Ex-A-3 is  

the exhibit of rights and title of plaintiff’s predecessors in  

title.

8. Defedants, as already indicated, on the other hand,  

pleaded that the total extent of Survey No.53 was only 33  

acres and 12 guntas and if that be so, after sub-division

Page 9

9

the  extent  of  sub-divided  survey  numbers  would  also  

remain the  same,  but  the extent  of  sub-divided Survey  

Nos.60,  61  and  62  were  increased to  41  acres  and  32  

guntas in the revenue records without any notice to the  

defendants  which  according  to  the  defendants,  was  

fraudulently done by one Venkata Narasimha Reddy, the  

original land owner of Survey No.53 of Kakaguda village,  

who himself was the Patwari of Kakaguda village.  Further,  

it  was  the  stand  of  the  Defendants  that  in  exercise  of  

powers  under  The  Secunderabad  and  Aurangabad  

Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1930, the G.LR. of  

1933 was prepared by Captain O.M. James after making  

detailed enquiries from the holder of occupancy rights as  

well  as  general  public.   Further,  it  is  also  stated  that  

certain land within the villages were handed over by the  

then Nizam to British Government for military use.  Land  

in  question measuring  7  acres  and 51 guntas  in  G.L.R.  

1933  at  Survey  No.581  was  used  by  the  British  

Government as murram pits and it was classified as Class-

C land vested in the Cantonment Authority.  G.L.R. 1933  

was re-written in the year 1956 in view of the provisions of

Page 10

10

Rule  3  of  Cantonment  Land  Administration  Rules,  1937  

and said Survey No.581 was re-written as G.L.R. Survey  

No.445.  Further, in view of the classification of the land,  

as  stipulated  in  Cantonment  Land  Administration  rules,  

1937,  land  pertaining  to  G.L.R.  Survey  No.445  was  re-

classified as B-4 (vacant land) reserved for future military  

purposes  and  management  was  transferred  from  

cantonment authority to Defence Estate.

9. The above-mentioned facts  would indicate that  the  

plaintiff traces their title to the various sale deeds, Ext.A-3  

Setwar of 1353 Fasli and the oral evidence of the survey  

officials and the defendants claim title and possession of  

the land on the basis of the G.L.R.  The question that falls  

for consideration is whether the evidence adduced by the  

plaintiff  is  sufficient  to  establish the title  to  the land in  

question and to give a declaration of title and possession  

by the civil court.

10. Shri  Vikas  Singh,  learned senior  counsel  appearing  

for the appellants submitted that G.L.R. 445 measuring an  

area of  7  acres  and 51 guntas  is  classified as  B-4 and

Page 11

11

placed  under  the  management  of  the  Defence  Estate  

Officer.   Column 7 of the G.L.R. would indicate that the  

landlord is the Central Government.  Out of 7 acres and 51  

guntas, land admeasuring 6 acres has been handed over  

to  Defence  Accounts  Department  for  construction  of  

Defence Staff Quarters as per survey No.445/A, as per the  

records as early as in 1984.  Further, it was pointed out  

that the appellant had already constructed approximately  

300 quarters in 6 acres of land.  Learned senior counsel  

submitted that since the extent of land mentioned in old  

Survey No.53 as well  as in the settlement and partition  

deed, do not tally to the extent of land mentioned in Ext.A-

3 and burden is heavy on the side of the plaintiff to show  

and explain  as  to  how the registered family  settlement  

and partition deed did not take place in the disputed land.  

Learned senior counsel also submitted that the High Court  

has committed an error in ignoring the G.L.R. produced by  

the defendants,  even though there is  no burden on the  

defendants  to  establish  its  title  in  a  suit  filed  by  the  

plaintiff for declaration of title and possession.

Page 12

12

11. Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel and Shri  

Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the respondents submitted that the city civil court as well  

as  the  High  Court  have  correctly  appreciated  and  

understood the legal position and correctly discarded the  

entries  made  in  the  G.L.R.   Learned  senior  counsel  

submitted that the correctness and evidentiary value of  

G.L.R. entries have to be appreciated in the context of the  

history of the Secunderabad Cantonment.  Reference was  

made to the provisions of Cantonment Act,  1924 and it  

was pointed out that the Secunderabad and Aurangabad  

Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1930 do not apply  

to the Kakaguda village.  Learned senior counsel have also  

referred to Ex.A6, the Sesala Pahani for the year 1955-58,  

of Kakaguda village, Ex.A7, the Pahani Patrika for the year  

1971-72, Ex.A8, the Pahani Patrika for the year 1972-73  

and submitted that they would indicate that Methurama  

Reddy, the predecessor in title, was the Pattedar of Survey  

Nos.60 and 61 of Kakaguda village. It was pointed out that  

the entries made therein have evidentiary value.  Learned  

counsel pointed out that the Settlement Register prepared

Page 13

13

under  the  Statutes  and  Pahanies  maintained  under  the  

Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulations of 1358,  

Fasli have considerable evidentiary value.  Further, it was  

also pointed out that the land in question is pot kharab  

land, which is not normally treated as land in Section 3(j)  

of Ceiling Act and hance may not figure in a Settlement or  

Partition  Deed,  hence  not  subjected  to  any  revenue  

assessment.  Learned senior counsel submitted that the  

plaintiff  has  succeeded  in  establishing  its  title  to  the  

property in question, as was found by the city civil court  

as well as the High Court which calls for no interference by  

this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

12. It  is trite law that,  in a suit for declaration of title,  

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.

13. The High Court, we notice, has taken the view that  

once  the  evidence  is  let  in  by  both  the  parties,  the  

question of burden of proof pales into insignificance and

Page 14

14

the evidence let in by both the parties is required to be  

appreciated by the court in order to record its findings in  

respect  of  each  of  the  issues  that  may  ultimately  

determine the fate of the suit.  The High Court has also  

proceeded on the basis that initial burden would always be  

upon the plaintiff to establish its case but if the evidence  

let in by defendants in support of their case probabalises  

the case set up by the plaintiff, such evidence cannot be  

ignored and kept out of consideration.   

14. At the outset, let us examine the legal position with  

regard  to  whom  the  burden  of  proof  lies  in  a  suit  for  

declaration of title and possession.  This Court in  Maran  

Mar  Basselios  Catholicos v.  Thukalan  Paulo  Avira  

reported in  AIR1959 SC 31 observed that  “in  a suit  for  

declaration if the plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so  

on the strength of their own title.”  In Nagar Palika, Jind  

v.  Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426, this Court  

held as under:  

“the onus to prove title to the property in  question was on the plaintiff.  In a suit for  ejectment based on title it was incumbent

Page 15

15

on the part of the court of appeal first to  record a finding on the claim of title to the  suit  land made on behalf  of  the plaintiff.  The  court  is  bound  to  enquire  or  investigate that question first before going  into any other question that may arise in a  suit.”

15. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff  

in  a  suit  for  declaration  of  title  and  possession  could  

succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could  

be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge  

the onus on it,  irrespective of the question whether the  

defendants have proved their case or not.  We are of the  

view that  even if  the  title  set  up  by  the  defendants  is  

found  against,  in  the  absence  of  establishment  of  

plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.

16. We notice  that  the  trial  court  as  well  as  the  High  

Court rather than examining that question in depth, as to  

whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their  

title on the scheduled suit  land,  went on to examine in  

depth the weakness of the defendants title.  Defendants

Page 16

16

relied on the entries in the GLR and their possession or re-

possession  over  the  suit  land  to  non-suit  the  Plaintiffs.  

The  court  went  on  to  examine  the  correctness  and  

evidentiary value of the entries in the GLR in the context  

of  the  history  and scope of  Cantonment  Act,  1924,  the  

Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925 and tried to  

establish  that  no  reliance  could  be  placed  on  the  GLR.  

The question is not whether the GLR could be accepted or  

not, the question is, whether the plaintiff could prove its  

title over the suit property in question.  The entries in the  

GLR  by  themselves  may  not  constitute  title,  but  the  

question is whether entries made in Ext.A-3 would confer  

title or not on the Plaintiff.   

17. This  Court  in  several  Judgments  has  held  that  the  

revenue records does not confer title.  In Corporation of  

the  City  of  Bangalore v.  M.  Papaiah  and  another  

(1989) 3 SCC 612  held that “it is firmly established that  

revenue  records  are  not  documents  of  title,  and  the  

question  of  interpretation  of  document  not  being  a  

document  of  title  is  not  a  question  of  law.”   In  Guru

Page 17

17

Amarjit Singh v.  Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4  

SCC  349  this  Court  has  held  that  “that  the  entries  in  

jamabandi are not proof of title”.  In State of Himachal  

Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257  

this Court held that “the entries in the revenue papers, by  

no  stretch  of  imagination  can  form  the  basis  for  

declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff.”

18. The Plaintiff has also maintained the stand that their  

predecessor-in-interest was the Pattadar of the suit land.  

In a given case, the conferment of Patta as such does not  

confer title.  Reference may be made to the judgment of  

this  Court  in  Syndicate  Bank  v.  Estate  Officer  &  

Manager,  APIIC  Ltd.  &  Ors.  (2007)  8  SCC  361  and  

Vatticherukuru  Village  Panchayat  v.  Nori   

Venkatarama Deekshithulu  & Ors.  (1991)  Supp.  (2)  

SCC 228.

19. We notice that the above principle laid down by this  

Court sought to be distinguished by the High Court on the  

ground  that  none  of  the  above-mentioned  judgments,  

there is any reference to any statutory provisions under

Page 18

18

which revenue records referred therein, namely, revenue  

register,  settlement  register,  jamabandi  registers  are  

maintained.  The High Court took the view that Ext.A-3 has  

evidentiary value since the same has been prepared on  

the  basis  of  Hyderabad  record  of  Rights  in  Land  

Regulation, 1358 Fasli.  It was also noticed that column 1  

to 19 of Pahani Patrika is nothing but record of rights and  

the entries in column 1 to 19 in Pahani Patrika shall  be  

deemed  to  be  entries  made  and  maintained  under  

Regulations.

20. We are of  the view that  even if  the entries in  the  

Record of Rights carry evidentiary value, that itself would  

not  confer  any  title  on  the  plaintiff  on  the  suit  land  in  

question.   Ext.X-1  is  Classer  Register  of  1347  which  

according to the trial court, speaks of the ownership of the  

plaintiff’s  vendor’s  property.   We  are  of  the  view  that  

these  entries,  as  such,  would  not  confer  any  title.  

Plaintiffs have to show, independent of those entries, that  

the plaintiff’s predecessors had title over the property in  

question  and  it  is  that  property  which  they  have

Page 19

19

purchased.  The only document that has been produced  

before the court was the registered family settlement and  

partition deed dated 11.12.1939 of  their  predecessor  in  

interest, wherein, admittedly, the suit land in question has  

not been mentioned.  

    21. Learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents  submitted  that  the  land  in  question  is  pot  

kharab and since no tax is being paid, the same would not  

normally be mentioned in the partition deed or settlement  

deed.  The A.P. Survey and Settlement Mannual, Chapter  

XIII deals with pot kharab land, which is generally a non-

cultivable  land  and  if  the  predecessors  in  interest  had  

ownership over this pot kharab land, the suit land, we fail  

to  see,  why  there  is  no  reference  at  all  to  the  family  

settlement  and  partition  deed  dated  11.12.1939.  

Admittedly, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff got  

this  property  in  question  through  the  above-mentioned  

family  settlement  and  partition  deed.   Conspicuous  

absence  of  the  suit  land  in  question  in  the  above-

mentioned deed would  cast  doubt  about  the  ownership

Page 20

20

and title of the plaintiffs over the suit land in question.  No  

acceptable explanation has been given by the plaintiff to  

explain away the conspicuous omission of the suit land in  

the registered family settlement and partition deed.  Facts  

would also clearly indicate that in Ext-A1, the suit land has  

been described in old Survey No.53 which was allotted to  

the plaintiff’s predecessors in title.  It is the common case  

of  the  parties  that  Survey  No.53  was  sub-divided  into  

Survey Nos.60,  61 and 63.   Admittedly,  the old  Survey  

No.53  takes  in  only  33  acres  and  12  guntas,  then  

naturally, Survey Nos.60, 61 and 63 cannot be more than  

that extent.   Further, if pot kharab land is not recorded in  

the revenue record, it would be so even in case of sub-

division of Old Survey No. 53.  The only explanation was  

that, since the suit land being pot kharab land, it might  

not have been mentioned in Ex.A.    

22. A  family  settlement  is  based  generally  on  the  

assumption that  there was an antecedent  title  of  some  

kind in the purchase and the arrangement acknowledges  

and defines what that title was.  In a family settlement-

Page 21

21

cum-partition,  the  parties  may define the  shares  in  the  

joint  property  and  may  either  choose  to  divide  the  

property by metes and bounds or  may continue to live  

together and enjoy the property as common.  So far as  

this case is concerned, Ex.A1 is totally silent as to whose  

share the suit land will fall and who will enjoy it.  Needless  

to say that the burden is on the plaintiff to explain away  

those  factors,  but  the  plaintiff  has  not  succeeded.   On  

other hand, much emphasis has been placed on the failure  

on  the  part  of  the  defendants  to  show  that  the  

applicability of the GLR.  The defendant maintained the  

stand that the entries made in GLR, maintained under the  

Cantonment  Land  Administration  Rules,  1937,  in  the  

regular course of administration of the cantonment lands,  

are admissible in evidence and the entries made therein  

will prevail over the records maintained under the various  

enactment,  like  the  Andhra  Pradesh  (Telangana  Area)  

Land Revenue Act, 1317 Falsi, the Hyderabad Record of  

Rights  in  Land  Regulation,  1358  Falsi,  the  Hyderabad  

Record of Rights Rules,  1956 etc.   In order to establish  

that position, reliance was placed on the judgments of this

Page 22

22

Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (2012)  

8  SCC 148,  Union of India & Ors.  v.  Kamla Verma  

(2010)  13  SCC  511,  Chief  Executive  Officer  v.  

Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors.  (1999) 3 SCC 555 and  

Secunderabad  Cantonment  Board,  Andhra  Circle,   

Secundrabad v. Mohd. Mohiuddin & Ors.  (2003) 12  

SCC 315.   Both, the trial Court and the High Court made a  

detailed  exercise  to  find  out  whether  the  GLR  Register  

maintained  under  the  Cantonment  Land  Administration  

Rules, 1937 and the entries made there under will have  

more evidentiary value than the Revenue records made  

by the Survey Department of the State Government.    In  

our  view,  such  an  exercise  was  totally  unnecessary.  

Rather than finding out the weakness of GLR, the Courts  

ought  to  have  examined  the  soundness  of  the  plaintiff  

case.  We reiterate that the plaintiff has to succeed only  

on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the  

case set up by the defendants in a suit for declaration of  

title and possession.

Page 23

23

23. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the  

plaintiff  has  not  succeeded  in  establishing  his  title  and  

possession of  the suit  land in  question.   The appeal  is,  

therefore,  allowed  and  the  judgment  of  the  trial  court,  

affirmed by the High Court, is set aside.  However, there  

will be no order as to costs.

…..………………………J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………….J. (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi, January 07,   2014