HARNEK SINGHversusPRITAM SINGH & ORS.

                         [2013] 6 S.C.R. 184


A                          HARNEK SINGH
                                   v.
                       PRITAM SINGH & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal Nos.3895-3896 of 2013)
                           APRIL 17, 2013
B
       [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

         Family Law - Custom - Adoption - Validity - Plea of
    plaintiff-appellant that he had been adopted by defendant
C   no. 1 - Parties belonged to the Jat community in District
    Ambala, Haryana - At the time of alleged adoption, plaintiff
    was about 23 years old and a married man having children -
    For valid adoption, required condition that the person who may
    be adopted has not completed the age of 15 years unless
D   there is a custom and usage applicable - Concurrent findings
    of both the first appellate court and the High Court that neither
    the custom was proved nor the factum of adoption was
    established by conclusive evidence - On appeal, held:
    Question with regard to the custom prevalent amongst the Jats
E   to take in adoption a married man having children not
    required to be gone into - Evidence brought on record goes
    against the plaintiff and on that basis it cannot be held that
    there was a valid adoption - Defendant no. 1 filed written
    statement asserting that he never took the plaintif in adoption,
F   and also denied that plaintiff resided with him or helped him
    in cultivating the land - Further during pendency of the case,
    when defendant No. 1 died, the plaintiff did not even perform
    the last ritual and other ceremonies of the deceased -
    Normally, concurrent findings recorded by two courts need not
    be interferecf with, unless they appear to be perverse in law -
G   On facts, evidence goes against the appellant and, therefore,
    it cannot be held that there was perversity in the judgment
    passed by the two appellate courts - Hindu Adoption and
    Maintenance Act, 1956 - ss. 10 & 11.

H                                 184
     HARNEK SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH & ORS.                   185


    The plaintiff (appellant) filed a suit for declaration that   A
the gift deed alleged to have been executed by defendant
No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, in respect of
the suit land was illegal, void, ineffective and liable to be
set aside. The plaintiff averred that he was the adopted
son of defendant No.1; that the plaintiff along with              B
defendant No.1 constituted a Joint Hindu family and was
having title in the ancestral property and that defendant
Nos.2 and 3 got the alleged gift deed executed in their
favour by giving threat and undue coercion, taking
advantage of the unsound and mental weakness of                   c
defendant no.1.
    The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed their joint written
statement taking preliminary objection that the plaintiff is
not the adopted son of defendant no.1 as he never
adopted the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff had no        D
locus standi to file the suit.. The further case of the said
defendants was that that defendant No.1 was the
absolute owner of the suit property and was fully
competent to alienate the same in favour of defendants;
and that he executed the gift deed in their favour out of         E
love and affection.
    The trial court held that the plaintiff was the legally
adopted son of deceased defendant No.1, however, the
suit property was not the ancestral property; hence,              F
defendant no.1 was entitled to alienate the property.
Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was
dismissed. The first appellate court observed that when
the appellant claimed to have been taken in adoption, he
was more than fifteen years of age (about 23 years old)           G
and a married man having children, and thus it was
incumbent upon him to at least plead·that his adoption
was in consonance with the custom prevalent amongst
his community (Jat community of District Ambala) but he
did not so plead in the plaint. Further observing that the
                                                                  H
    186       SUPREME COURT REPORTS.           [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A suit was filed during the life time of defendant no.1, who
  had filed a written statement wherein he denied the very
  factum of adoption; the first appellate Court held that
  once the adoptive father himself alleged that he never
  took the plaintiff-appellant in adoption, the court cannot
B substitute its own decision that he was taken in adoption
  by defendant no.1. The first appellate court held that
  prima facie the alleged adoption was violative of the
  provision of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and
  Maintenance Act 1956 and accordingly the same cannot
c be held to be a valid adoption: The High Court affirmed
  the findings recorded by the first appellate court, and
  therefore the instant appeals.

          Dismissing the appeals, the Court

D      HELD: 1. Under clause (iv) of Section 1O of the Hindu
  Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, one of the
  conditions inter alia is that the person who may be
  adopted has not completed the age of 15 years unless
  there is a custom and usage applicable to the parties
E which permit persons who completed the age of 15 years
  being taken in adoption. The other condition for a valid
  adoption has been provided in Section 11 of the Act.
  Clause (vi) of Section 11 specifically provides that the
  child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in
F adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under
  their authority with the intent to transfer the child from the
  family of its birth. A child who is abandoned or whose
  parentage is not known may also be taken in adoption
  provided the given and taken ceremony is done from the
G place of family where it has been brought up to the family
  of its adoption. [Paras 12, 13 & 14] [195-G; 196-H; 197-A]
       2.1. Both the first appellate court and the High Court
  finally came to the conclusion that neither the custom
  has been proved nor the factum of adoption has been
H established by conclusive evidence. Normally, the
     HARNEK SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH & ORS.               187


concurrent findings recorded by the two courts need not       A
be interfered with, unless the findings appear to be
perverse in law. Without going into the question with
regard to the custom prevalent amongst the Jats to take
in adoption a married man having children, the evidence
which has been brought on record goes against the             B
plaintiff-appellant on the basis of which it cannot be held
that there was a valid adoption. [Paras 15, 16] [197-8-D]

     2.2. The plaintiff-appellant impleaded his adoptive
father as defendant No.1 and alleged that he was adopted      C
by defendant No.1. Curiously enough, defendant No.1,
the so called adoptive father, contested the suit by filing
written statement making an averment that he never
adopted him as his son. If the adoptive father himself
asserted that he never took the appellant in adoption, the
court cannot come to the conclusion that appellant was        D
taken in adoption by defendant No.1. It is strange enough
that when during the pendency of the case defendant
No.1 adoptive father died the plaintiff-appellant who
claims himself to be the adopted son has not even
performed the last ritual and other ceremonies of the         E
deceased. It has also come in evidence that during the
period when the alleged adoption took place, the
appellant's natural father was Sarpanch of the village and
the register which was produced in court to show that
there was some entry with regard to adoption remained         F
with the said Sarpanch. Apart from that, defendant No.1
adoptive father in his detailed written statement has
denied each and every allegation and claimed to be in
cultivating possession of the land and further denied that
the appellant ever resided with him in his house or helped    G
him in cultivating the land. The evidence goes against the
appellant and, therefore, it cannot be held that there is
perversity in the judgment passed by the two appellate
courts. [Para 17] [197-E-H; 198-A]
                                                              H
    188       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 6 S.C.R.


A         Kishan Singh and Others vs. Shanti and Others AIR 1938
    Lahore 299 - referred to.

                           Case Law Reference:
          AIR 1938 Lahore 299        referred to            Para 9
B
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3895-3896 of 2013.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 11.05.2009 of the High
  Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA Nos. 122 &
C 123 of 2008.

          Jyoti Mendiratta for the Appellant.

         Geeta Luthra, Aman Pal, Rupinder Sheoren, Ajay Pal for
    the Respondents.
0
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.

E       2. The plaintiff-appellant assailed the common judgment
    and order dated 11.05.2009 passed in RSA Nos.122/2008 and
    123/2008 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed both
    the appeals and affirmed the order passed by the lower
    appellate court.

F        3. The facts leading to these appeals may be summarized
    thus:-

       4. The plaintiff (appellant herein) filed a suit being Title Suit
  No. 80/1985 on 23.04.1985 for declaration that the gift deed
G dated 28.02.1985 registered on 22.03.1985 alleged to have
  been executed by defendant No.1 Sarup Singh (since
  deceased) in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, Pritam Singh
  and Surjan Singh, in respect of the suit land is illegal, void,
  ineffective and is to be set aside. A decree for permanent
H injunction was also sought for restraining defendant No.1 Sarup
      HARNEK SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH & ORS.                        189
                [M.Y. EQBAL, J]
Singh (now deceased) from alienating the land fully described           A
in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff filed the said suit with
the averments that he is the adopted son of Sarup Singh alias
Sarupa (now deceased) (defendant No.1 in the original suit).
The plaintiffs case is that Sarup Singh and his wife Prem Kaur
(now both deceased) had no child and were issueless. They               B
approached the natural father of the plaintiff Kesar Singh and
expressed their desire to adopt the plaintiff as their son to
which Kesar Singh agreed. Consequently, the plaintiff was
adopted as their own son by Sarup Singh and his wife on
16.12.1982 at Village Khatoli, District Ambala. There was               c
actual giving and taking i.e. the plaintiff was allegedly put in
the lap of Sarup Singh and Prem Kaur by the natural father
Kesar Singh and declared that from 16.12.1982 the plaintiff
became their son. It was alleged that all necessary
ceremonies including religious and customary formalities were
                                                                        D
observed and sweets were distributed and since then the
plaintiff became the son of deceased defendant No.1 Sarup
Singh and his wife. Plaintiffs further case is that since the
adoptive father and mother had become old, the plaintiff
started managing the entire property of the family including the
land, houses etc., and has been cultivating the suit land. The          E
plaintiffs further case is that for a few days when he went out
of the village, defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are very strong
headed and clever fellows removed the deceased Sarup
Singh from his house and by misrepresentation and putting
pressure to him and by giving threat and undue coercion got             F
the alleged gift deed executed in their favour taking advantage
of the unsound and mental weakness of the deceased Sarup
Singh. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit being No. 80/1985
against Sarup Singh (defendant No. 1) and defendant Nos. 2
and 3 challenging the said alleged gift deed. The plaintiff also        G
alleged that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have obtained a decree
against defendant No.1 regarding the suit property. Plaintiffs
further case is that the plaintiff along with defendant No.1
constituted a Joint Hindu family and was having title in the
ancestral property.                                                     H
    190       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013) 6 S.C.R.


A      5. On being summoned, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed their
  joint written statement taking preliminary objection that the
  plaintiff is not the adopted son of Scirup Singh as Sarup Singh
  never adopted the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff has no
  locus standi to file the suit. Defendants also denied that the
B plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land. The entire story
  of giving and taking and celebration was denied. It was also
  denied that any religious and customary formalities were ever
  observed in respect of the alleged adoption. Defendants' further
  case is that defendant No.1 Sarup Singh executed a gift deed
c in their favour out of love and affection and in view of the
  services rendered by them. It was stated that defendant No.1
  was the absolute owner of the suit property and was fully
  competent to alienate the same in favour of defendants.

       6. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier defendant Nos.
D 2 and 3 had also filed a suit being Suit No. 784 of 1984 titled
  as Hari Singh vs. Sarupa {defendant No. 1) for declaration that
  they are the owners in possession of the suit land on the basis
  of Gift Deed dated 22.03.1985 which was decreed by the Civil
  Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 15.04.1985. The
E plaintiff who was having no knowledge of the decree dated
  15.04.1985 could not challenge the same in his aforementioned
  Suit No. 80 of 1985 filed on 23.04.1985 and had to file a
  second suit being Suit No. 46 of 1987 challenging the decree
  dated 15.04.1985 alleging therein that the decree is a collusive
F one and has been obtained by committing fraud upon the Court
  and thus the same is invalid and ineffective. The pleadings of
  the parties in Suit No. 46 of 1987 are alleged to be similar to
  the pleadings in Suit No. 80 of 1985.

G       7. Both the suits were taken up together by the trial court
    and the following consolidated issues were framed:-

          1. Whether the plaintiff is adopted son of Sarup Singh as
          alleged? OPP

H         2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 15.4.85 is
      HARNEK SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH & ORS.                        191
                [M.Y. EQBAL, J)
     liable to be set aside as alleged? OPP                              A

     3. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the land was ancestral
     in the hand of Sarupa Singh, if so to what effect? OPP

     4. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land
     as alleged? OPP                                                     B

     5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit
     land as alleged? OPP

     6. Whether if the adoption deed if any is a result of forgery       C
     as alleged? OPD

     7. Whether gift deed dated 8.2.1985 is liable to be set
     aside as alleged? OPP

     8. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the              o
     present form? OPD

     9. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary
     parties? OPD

     10. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs?          E
     OPD

     11. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
     present suit? OPD

     8. The trial court in its judgment dated 31.08.2007 after           F
analyzing the evidence and considering the facts of the case
recorded its findings and decided Issue Nos.1 and 6 in favour
of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is the legally adopted son
of deceased defendant No.1 Sarup Singh. However, the trial
court decided Issue Nos. 2 and 7 against the plaintiff and in            G
favour of defendant-respondents. So far Issue No.3 is
concerned, the trial court held that the suit property was not the
ancestral property; hence, Sarup Singh was entitled to alienate
the property. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was
dismissed.                                                               H
    192      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 6 S.C.R.


A          9. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial court, the
    plaintiff-appellant filed appeals before the District Judge being
    Civil Appeal Nos. 84 and 85 of 2007. The first appellate court
    while narrating the facts in its judgment dated 13.12.2007, first
    of all noticed that the suit was filed by the plaintiff during the
B   lifetime of his adoptive father Sarup Singh making him
    defendant No.1. The said Sarup Singh contested the suit by
    filing written statement denying the averments made in the plaint
    that he ever adopted the plaintiff-appellant as his son. The said
    Sarup Singh also denied the allegations that the gift deed was
c   executed by him in favour of the defendant-respondents under
    any pressure or coercion. After analysing the pleadings and the
    evidence, the appellate court observed that although the plaintiff
    came up with a definite plea that he was being treated as
    adopted son of Sarup Singh since 1970 but the alleged actual
    giving and taking ceremony took place in the year 1982; hence
0
    the plaintiff-appellant was not sure as to whether the adoption
    had taken place in the year 1970 or in the year 1982. Strangely
    enough, no date or month has been provided in the pleadings
    of the year 1970 when the alleged adoption might have taken
    place. Admittedly, when the appellant was taken in adoption,
E   he was about 23 years old in the year 1982 and was a married
    man having children. The appellate court held that since the
    appellant was more than 15 years of age in 1982, it was
    incumbent upon him to prove that there was valid customs
    amongst Jats under which he could have been given in
F   adoption. The appellate court after noticing the fact that custom
    prevalent amongst the community has not been pleaded or
    proved, relied upon the decision of Lahore High Court in
    Kishan Singh and Others vs. Shanti and Others, AIR 1938
    Lahore 299 for the proposition that if any party wants the Court
G   to rely on a custom, onus is on that party to plead the custom
    in the precise terms and lead evidence to establish the said
    custom. The first appellate court while dismissing the appeals
    discussed the other decisions on the point of custom and finally
    recorded the following findings:-
H
 HARNEK SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH & ORS.                     193
           [M.Y. EQBAL, J]
" I have considered the respectful submissions of the           A
learned counsel for the appellant at length but before the
appellant could succeed in his claim it was incumbent upon
the appellant to at least plead that his adoption is in
consonance with the custom prevalent amongst his
community. This fact has no where been pleaded in the           B
plaint. This court is further of the view that it should have
been established beyond doubt that there existed such
custom in the area of district Ambala that jats can adopt
a child who may be more than fifteen years of age and may
be married. The cited ruling of Madhya Pradesh High Court       c
and of our own Hon'ble High Court pertains to the area of
M.P. and district Rohtak are of no avail to the case of the
appellant as custom differs from place to place and from
tribe to tribe. It cannot be laid down as a general rule that
simply because there was a custom in Rohtak amongst             0
Jat to adopt even a married person, the same will hold
good in District Ambala also. There was no dispute about
this proposition of law that once a custom is recognized
through judicial pronouncements, then it need not be
proved in subsequent cases but at the same time this
                                                                E
court is constrained to lay down that no judgment has been
produced by the learned counsel for the appellant with
respect to jats living in the area of District Ambala. The
custom amongst jats who are habitants of district Ambala
may be different then custom of jats who are residents of
district Rohtak. It reminds this court that our own Hon'ble     F
High Court has laid down in one of the decided case
reported in Hari Singh Vs. Bidhi Chand as reported in
1997 MLJ 224 that jats of tehsil Naraingarh district
Ambala lack the capacity to adopt. From all this it can be
safely inferred that the custom differs from place to place     G
and from tribe to tribe and as such evidence should have
been led beyond shadow of doubt that there existed
custom amongst jats of Ambala under which a married
man and man beyond age of 15 years could have been
given in adoption. Strangely enough, the custom has not         H
    194        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 6 S.C.R.


A         been pleaded in the present case and thus findings cannot
          be returned on issues no.1 and 6 in favour of the appellant.
          Not only this, the suit was filed during the life time of Sarup
          Singh, alleged adopted father of the appellant and in
          pursuance to the notice given by the court Sarup Singh duly
B         put in appearance before the court and filed a written
          statement wherein he denied the very factum of adoption.
          Once the adoptive father himself is alleging that he never
          took the appellant in adoption, this court cannot substitute
          its own decision that the appellant was taken in adoption
c         by Sarup singh. Prima facie the alleged adoption is
          violative of the provision of section 10 of the Hiridu
          Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 and accordingly the
          same cannot be held to be a valid adoption. The findings
          of the learned trial court on issues no.1 and 6 thus cannot
          be sustained and are accordingly reversed."
D
       10. The plaintiff-appellant assailed the judgment of the first
  appellate court by filing second appeals in the High Court being
  R.S.A. Nos. 122 and 123 of 2008. The High Court after
  discussing the judgments relied upon by the first appellate court
E and considering the facts and evidence on record came to the
  conclusion vide judgment dated 11.05.2009 that no fault could
  be found with the findings recorded by the first appellate court
  holding that in absence of pleading and proof of custom, no
  reliance could be placed on adoption deed, specially when the
F stand of the plaintiff-appellant himself in the suit was that he was
  governed by personal law, and the plea of custom was in the
  alternative. The High Court, therefore, affirmed the findings
  recorded by the first appellate court and dismissed the appeals.
  Hence, the plaintiff-appellant has moved this Court by filing the
G instant appeals by special leave.

       11. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, learned counsel appearing for the
  appellant assailed the judgment and order passed by the first
  appellate court and that by the High Court as being contrary to
H law settled by judicial pronouncements that there is a custom
      HARNEK SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH & ORS.                   195
                [M.Y. EQBAL, J)
prevalent amongst the Jats in Haryana to adopt even a married      A
person. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the judicial
pronouncements both the courts have misdirected itself by
holding that neither the custom has been pleaded nor the same
has been proved. Learned counsel submitted that it is well
recognized that the Hindu Jats are governed by their customs       B
and, therefore, even in the absence of a pleading, the appellate
courts ought to have affirmed the judgment passed by the trial
court. Learned counsel drew our attention to various decisions
favoured and against on this issue which have been fully
discussed by the courts below.                                     c
     12. Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act, 1956 needs to be quoted hereinbelow:-

    "10. Persons who may be adopted - No person shall
     be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following    D
     conditions are fulfilled, namely:-

    (i) he or she is a Hindu;

    (ii) he or she has not already been adopted;
                                                                   E
    (iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is a
    custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits
    persons who are married being taken in adoption;

    (iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years,
                                                                   F
    unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties
    which permits persons who have completed the age of
    fifteen years being taken in adoption."

     13. Under clause (iv) of Section 10, one of the conditions
inter alia is that the person who may be adopted has not           G
completed the age of 15 years unless there is a custom and
usage applicable to the parties which permit persons who
completed the age of 15 years being taken in adoption. The
other condition for a valid adoption has been provided in
Section 11 of the Act which reads as under:-                       H
    196       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A         "11. Other conditions for a valid adoption - In every
          adoption, the following conditions must be complied with:-

          (i) if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother
          by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu son,
          son's son or son's son's son (whether by legitimate blood
B
          relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption;

          (ii) if the adoption is of a daughter, the adoptive father or
          mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a
          Hindu daughter or son's daughter (whether by legitimate
c         blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of
          adoption;

          (iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to be
          adopted is a female, the adoptive father is at least twenty-
D         one years older than the person to be adopted;

          (iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person to be
          adopted is a male, the adoptive mother is at least twenty-
          one years older than the person to be adopted;

E         (v) the same child may not be adopted simultaneously by
          two or more persons;

          (vi) the child to be adopted must be actually given and
          taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned
          or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from
F
          the family of its birth or in the case of an abandoned child
          or a child whose parentage is not known, from the place
          or family where it has been brought up to the family of its
          adoption:

G               Provided that the performance of datta homam shall
          not be essential to the validity of adoption."

       14. Clause (vi) of Section 11 specifically provides that the
  child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in
H adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their
      HARNEK SINGH v. PRITAM SINGH & ORS.                      197
                [M.Y. EQBAL, J]
authority with the intent to transfer the child from the family of    A
its birth. A child who is abandoned or whose parentage is not
known may also be taken in adoption provided the given and
taken ceremony is done from the place of family where it has
been brought up to the family of its adoption.
                                                                      B
      15. Both the first appellate court and the High Court have
considered all the decisions relied upon by the parties and
finally came to the conclusion that neither the custom has been
proved nor the factum of adoption has been established by
conclusive evidence. Normally, the concurrent findings recorded       C
by the two courts need not be interfered with unless the findings
appear to be perverse in law.

     16. Without going into the question with regard to the
custom prevalent amongst the Jats to take in adoption a
married man having children, the evidence which has been              D
brought on record goes against the plaintiff-appellant on the
basis of which it cannot be held that there was a valid adoption.

     17. The plaintiff-appellant impleaded his adoptive father
Sarup Singh as defendant No.1 and alleged that he was
                                                                      E
adopted by defendant No.1. Curiously enough, defendant No.1,
the so called adoptive father, contested the suit by filing written
statement making an averment that he never adopted him as
his son. If the adoptive father himself asserted that he never took
the appellant in adoption, the court cannot come to the
conclusion that appellant was taken in adoption by defendant
                                                                      F
No.1. It is strange enough that when during the pendency of the
case defendant No.1 adoptive father died the plaintiff-appellant
who claims himself to be the adopted son has not even
performed the last ritual and other ceremonies of the deceased.
It has also come in evidence that during the period when the          G
alleged adoption took place, the appellant's natural father was
Sarpanch of the village and the register which was produced
in court to show that there was some entry with regard to
adoption remained with the said Sarpanch. Apart from that,
defendant No.1 adoptive father in his detailed written statement      H
    198       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 6 S.C.R.


A   has denied each and every allegation and claimed to be in
    cultivating possession of the land and further denied that the
    appellant ever resided with him in his house or helped him in
    cultivating the land. The evidence, in our view, goes against the
    appellant and, therefore, it cannot be held that there is perversity
8   in the judgment passed by the two appellate courts.

       18. In the light of the findings recorded by the two appellate
  courts and the discussion made hereinbefore, we do not find
  any reason to interfere with the judgments passed by the first
C appellate court and the High Court.

        19. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in
    these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.

    8.8.8.                                       Appeals dismissed.