Holding

The Jallowkhana complex is an integrated impersonal estate vested in the heir‑apparent; the State of Punjab has no title to the disputed building and must comply with the mandatory injunction within three years.

Summary

The dispute concerned a double‑storeyed building within the Jallowkhana complex at Kapurthala, occupied by the Punjab Public Works Department. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, a heir‑apparent of the erstwhile Maharaja, claimed ownership based on a 1925 farman that vested the entire complex in each succeeding heir, while the State of Punjab argued that the complex was not listed as private property at the time of merger and that its title had been acquired by lapse of time. The Supreme Court held that the Jallowkhana complex is a single, integrated, impersonal estate whose ownership remains with the heir‑apparent and cannot be divided; the State’s possession was merely permissive, not a licence, and could not become adverse possession. Consequently, the State has no title to the building and must obey the mandatory injunction ordering it to vacate, to be complied with within three years. The State’s appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The nature of the Jallowkhana complex as a single integrated property and whether it can have multiple owners
Whether the State of Punjab acquired title to the disputed building by lapse of time or adverse possession
Whether the State's possession constitutes a licence despite the absence of a licence fee
The effect of the Maharaja's farman on ownership, creating a perpetual heir‑apparent interest distinct from state or personal property
Whether the unique impersonal character of the property precludes divestment from the plaintiff
The enforceability and time‑frame of the mandatory injunction issued by lower courts

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 13
Easement Act, 1882s. Section 52, s. Section 60, s. Section 61, s. Section 62
Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 65
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. Section 39
Transfer of Property Act

Subjects

property lawtitle to landprincely statefarmanheir apparentadverse possessionlicencemandatory injunctionmerger of statesJallowkhana complex

Judgment

A STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

v.

BRIGADIER SUKHJIT SINGH

.JUNE 11, 1993
B [M.M. PUNCHHI ANDS. C. AGRA WAL, J.J .]

Constillltion of India, 1950: -
Article 13- Farman issued by a Ruler of an erstwhile Indian Swte-
Sovereign will could be expressed in any manner and it becomes binding as law.
c Transfer of Property Act,

Title to property-Merger of States- · : Erstwhile Ruler of Indian
State-Not enlistingpartic11larpropertywhile declaring his private properties-Biil ><-
iss11ing a Farman that the property wo11ld vest with each succeeding heir
D apparem-Ef{ect of-Title-Whether could be claimed by State.

Easemems Act, 1882:

Si:ctions 52, 60, 61 & 62-Licence-Paymem of licence fee not essemialfor
subsistence of-Revocation of licence-Occupier State to vacate-Orders of
E lower courts-confirmed.

Limitation Act, 1963:

Article 65-Adverse possession-Licensee continuing as such for
F long-Permissive possession-Whether becomes hostile by long lapse of time ~o
as to claim adverse possession.

Specific Relief Act, 1963:

G S. 39-Suit for eviction-Property occupied by State and claiming title
thereof-Plaintiff descendent of erstwhile Ruler who i~s11ed Fannan-Property
neither personal nor of State-To be succ.eeded by heir apparent-Mandatory
Injunction issued by Courts below- Confirmed-State to vacate the premises.

H The building in dispute viz. a double storeyed.building has been in the -
944
STA TE OF PUN.TAB 1·. BRIG. SUKHJIT SINGH: 945

-
/
occupation of the State Public Works Department. The plaintiff-respondent A
filed a suit claiming that he was the owner of the building and that the
possession by the State was permissive in character and in the nature of a
licence, and even after he had terminated the same, the State had not vacated
the building. He therefore sought mandatory injunction requiring the State
to vacate the premises and to keep its hands off from the other properties in
the complex known as Jallowkhana Complex owned and possessed by him. B
The State disputed the claim on the ground that since the erstwhile Ruler of
Kapurthala State, the ancestor of plaintiff, did not enlist the Jallowkhana
Complex as part of his private properties at the time of merger of States, the
entire complex was owned by the State.

The trial court partially decreed the suit holding that except the double
c
storeyed building in occupation of the State, the remnants in the J allowkhana
complex was owned and possessed by the plaintiff-respondent. It took the
view that the State had become the owner of the said double storeyed building
by lapse of time; that there was no licence since admittedly no licence fee had
ever been paid. In respect of the other portions of the property, the trial court D
found that the State had the right of easement.

Ct·oss appeals came to be filed before the District Court. The appeal of
the State was dismissed and that of the plaintiff-respondent was allowed ·
resulting in the suit being decreed in entirety. The second appeals filed by the
State were dismissed by the High Court. Hence these appeals by the State. E

- Dismissing the appeals, this court

. HELD: 1. Jallowkhana complex is one integrated property. Whatever
is composed thereof is Jallowkhana. There cannot be two owners to such F
,,
~

. property. The property must remain with the heir-apparent. The State
cannot partially be an heir-apparent. On the other hand when the plaintiff-
respondent terms the State as a licensee, it cannot be negatived on the mere
plea that no licence fee was agreed to be paid. Payment oflicence fee is not an
essential attribute for the subsistence of a licence. The mere fact that the
licence is oflong duration dating back to the year 1925, as suggested by some G
of the plaintitrs witnesses, or ofl947 as said by the witnesses of the State, is
of no consequence. (952-H, 953-A,B)

2. Permissive possession, however long, cannot by itself be said to have
.become hostile by a "long lapse of time", more so, on property, the nature and H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A character of which is unique and singular, having attributes of being imper-
sonal. Such status of the propert~· rules out the objection regarding adverse
possession for which even an issue was not claimed in the Courts below
keeping apart the pleadings. ( 953-B-C)

3.1. It is beyond doubtthatthe ruler ofan Indian State was in the position
B ofa sovereign, and his command was the law. His Farman had the strength
and potency ofa law made by an elected legislature and his acts, administra-
tive or·executive, were sovereign in character. The Farman has necessarily to
-
be imported with those attributes. (951-G-H, 952-A)

3.2. Creating such kind of a special estate undeniably was within the
c competence of the ruler. His creative dimension and imaginative skill need
not have conformed to any set standards or patterns known to jurisprudence
or law. His sovereign will could have been expressed in \'arious innovations.
And this is an instance in which he put his sentiment, attached to the complex,
at a pedestal at which it was neither to be treated as State property nor
personal property either for him or in the hands of the succeeding heirs-
D apparent in the line of primogeniture. Its ownership and possession in the
hands of each succeeding heir-apparent was devised as purposive, for per-
petually keeping its integrity and the name of the dynasty alive, the Jallowkhana
structure symbolising such continuance by its special status and reverence.
(952-E,G)
E
4. Title to the double storeyed building in questi?n could not be divested

-
from the plaintiff due to the unique and singular character of the proper~-, it
having attributes of being impersonal, as also by mere lapse of time, or on
account ofnon-pa~·ment of any licence fee or rent. 01) an adverse possession,
for which there is no plea as well as the property in dispute being an integral
F . part of a complex, to which complex the claim of the State to its ownership has
failed, and finally the ruler on merger of his State need not have claimed this
to be his personal property to maintain the suit and seek relief. Thus the State
has no title to the disputed propert~· and hence must obey the mandator~·
injunction issued b~· the lower appellate court as confirmed by the High
Court. The mandatory injunction granted by the lower appellate court is so
G weak!y worded that it is capable of being evaded totally, and in any event for
a very long time to the point of negating it. In any case the injunction has to
be carried out within a reasonable time. The mandatory injunction issued b~·
the lower appellate court should be carried out in its entirety, latest by the end
of three years, if not earlier, and on the breach of which the law may take its
H own course. ( 953-C-G) ·
STXIE OF PUNJAB t'. BRIG. SUKHJIT SINGH [PUNCHHI. J.] 947

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1007-08 of A
1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.1991 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in R.S.A. No. 1719 & 1720 bf 1989.

B
Kapil Sibal, Ranbir Singh Yadav and G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.

D.D. Thakur. Anil Mittal and Manoj Swarup for the Respondent

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
PUNCHHI,J. These two appeals at the instance of the State of Punjab, are
directed against a common judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, passed in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1719 and 1720 of
1989 and are limited in scope to the determination of title to a double storeyed
building situated in a complex known as Jallowkhana in the town of Kapurthala.
D
These appeals have arisen in the following manner.

The respondent herein is Brigadier Sukhjit Singh. He is the son ofMaharaja
Paramjit Singh and the grand-son of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh in the order of
primogeniture succession. The ancestory ofMaharaja Jagatjit Singh is traced to
Baba Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, the founder of Kapurthala State and· the Ahluwalia E
dynasty. It is conunon ground that there is a complex known as Jallowkhana at
Kapurtllala which encompasses two hiswric ha\'elis, which in the context mean
palaces. going by the names Haveli Baba J ~issa Singh and Nihal Mahal. Besides
these two havelis, there are open spaces and other structures in the complex and
the disputed one is a double storeyed building presently in the occupation of State
or Punjab through its Public Works Department. The plaintiff-respondent claim- F
r__,
ing that since the possession of the State of Punjab thereon was pemu~:,.n.: in
character and in the nature of a licence, and despite his terminating the same the
State of Punjab had not vacated the disputed building, he sought relief by way of
suit for mandatory injunction requiring the State of Punjab to vacate the premises,
and to keep its hands off from the other properties in the complex over which the
G
plaintiff-respondent was owner in possession.
_... The State of Punjab on the other hand disputed the ownership of the plaintiff
to the Jallowkhana complex and claimed that the building in dispute belonged to
the government and was being maintained by the Public Works Department at
state expense since 1947. The possession of plaintiif·towards any part of the H
.,
/
. I ,.;.2~ '-.'
SVPRE~tE COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

...... .' .. \ ,, .' . - '-· --·~-- ~ -----~
.... -
A . buildings was denied. It was pleaded that Vv'hen the princely states in this part of
lhe co~ntry mc~g-ed :~ith:-- the Staie knov.·n as the Patial:i and East Pllnjab State
Unions (PEPSU). ·the rulers of the merging States were required to· declare their
private properties. but the ruler of Kapurtltala Stare. however, while declaring his
private properties. did notenlistlhe.Jallow~hana complex as part of his private
properties. On that analysis it was claimed that the entire Jallowkhana complex
Il
\ .
was owned by the State.
·.... '
.... ,., ..
Since thefe' \\;ere various pleas On both sides on locus. jurisdiction. limita-
tion~·es·t~ppaJ and maintai~ability~ a number of issues were struck on the pleadings
uf the parties. but \VC arc not concerned \vith them any inore for they stand settled
C one_,vay or the other so a-, to steer the suit tn its conclusion on title to the properties.

The trial court on its part partially decreed the suit holding that except the
double stOreycd building in occupation of the State of Punjab. the remnants-in the
Jallo\\'khana complex \vas O\vncd and possessed b}r the plaintiff-rcspondc~t. It
took the vic'v that the State-of Punjah had b~come the O\\'OCr of the said douhlc
fl storcyed buildl.ng by lapse of time.- It vic\\·cd that there \Vas no lii.::cncc since
admittedly no licence fee had ever been paid. Grounding its concJusinn solely t1n
that basis it held that even though the conunon entrance to the double storcycd
building as well as to the palaces knov.·n as llavcli Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal
~tahal through the dcori \vas owned by the plaintiff-respondent. stilJ the Stat~ of
Punjab had a right of passage through it a-; easement. Similarly it held that the o~n
E courtyard in front of the double storeycd building a-; indicated in the plan. wa'\- in
the O\\lk."fshii} of the plaintiff but the defendant-State had an casen1cnt of passage
over it. The court ho,vevcr did notice the fact that the State of Punjab had never
pleaded alternatively _any such ea~ements and yet had no hesitation in the grant
thereof. In the result, the $tale of Punjab succeeded in quelling the claim of:
F ownership of the plaintiff to the double storeyed building and it was held to be the
_property of the State ""bcCausc of lapse of time··. andotherpOrti,Jris of the property
a-; aforen~cntioncd \ycre found to be subjected to' casements. as spelled out earlier.
Th~ -~cmaining pans of thC complex including the t\vo havelis were held to ~c in
the ownership and possession of the plaintiff-respondent. ,

G ·Two cross appeals were tiled before the District Judge, Kapurthala. The
appeal o_f the State of Punjab was dismissed but the cross appeal of the plaintiff-
rcspondent \Vas alll1\\'ed The plaintiff~respondent .succecdcd in having the suit
decreed in ciltirety. The findi~gs of the trial court ori the questioned iss~es nos. 5
an_d 8 were reversed and a mandatory injunction 'Yas issued calling upon the
H defcndant-Statc 1,1 hand over the possession of the double storeycd building in -

•
~.....-
ST.-\ TE OF l'l'NJAB ,._BRIG. SUKHJIT SINGH [PLTNCHHI. J.] 949

ctispute lll the plaintiff, as well as artirming restraining the State from interfering A
in the possession of the plaintiff or properties in other part of the Jallowkhana
complex. Obedience to the mandatory injunction was conditioned in terms that
since the government oftices wen! functioning in the double storeyed building
since long, the same may be vacated by the government as and when suitable
accommodation is made available fur such offices. and till then the plaintiff and
the State Government were suggested to mutually settle reasonable rent to be paid B
by the State GO\-ernmerit for use and occupation till the government vacated it.

Two separate second appeals were filed by the State ·of Punjab in the High
Court but those were dismissed by means of the common judgment under appeal.
At the outset notice in the special leave petitions was issued by this Court limited
to the question of the double storeyed building. In the mean time parties were
c
permitted to file addititmal documents as existing on the trial court file, which were
... filed. Leave was then granted limited to the property referred to in the notice.
During the course of the hearing of the appeal. it was felt that a report be called for
from the Sub-Judge. Kapurthala as to whether the Deorhi, through which was the
common entrance. was in possession of the State Government and whether it D
needed repairs. He was also required to report whether the deori is the main
entrance to the double storcyed building in dispute .or whether the main entrance
to the said building was from another route. The Sub-Judge has reported that the
Deorhi in ·question is in possession of Brigadier Sukhjit Singh-respondent and it
is bey1md repairs. He has further intimated that prest:ntly the Deorhi is not the main
entranct: to the double storeyed building but on site a distinct 16 ft. wide path has E
been provided as main entrance to the double storeyed building. The additional
documents in the form of photographs of the deori and the site plan Ex.R-7
showing its location go to show that the entrance to the Deorhi is blocked by
closing its gate and knitted by barbed wire, and the main entrance to the double
stnreyed building shifted perpendicularly from a cross direction. This is the fact
situation. F

1
The case in the courts below has proceeded on the footing that the double
storeycd building is part of Jallowkhana complex. Besides, not only does the
afore-depiction estab1'sh, it has also been found otherwise by the courts below that
the double storeyed building was and is part of the Jallowkhana complex. It is in
G
the Jallowkhana complex that the two historic havelis, namely Haveli Baba Jassa
Singh and Nihal Mahal are situated and for all these buildings there was a common
entrance through a Deorhi which has now fell in dis-use and that now a st:parate
passage stands provided at site to reach the double storeyed building which is
perpendicularly cross to the passage from the deori. It is also clear that the claim
1)f the plaintiff that the double storeyed building in occupation of the State of ff
950 SPPREtvtE COl.'RT REPORTS 11 'Jf!~ I 3 S.CR.

A Punjab was part and parcel of the .I allowkhana cnmplex stands es ta hi ishcd and that
the Cl!Urls bclmv. except the trial court. have held it to be in the ownership l)f the
plaintiff-respnm1cnt: hut the trial court has held that the plaintiff-respondent had
lost ownership due to the occupation of the State of Punjab "'because of lapse of
time ... The title to the .lallowkhana complex comprising of the two hist11ric
havclies and other open places and structures. excluding the duuhle storeyed
B building. has been put beyond dispute and the plaintiff-respondent is held tn be the
O\vner therePf and cotwersely the State has been held to be llllt its O\vner. This is
the effect or the limited leave granted. Thus the limited question Oil which this
appeal survh·cs is shnuld the double storcycd building be retric\'ed fmm that
complex and held to he owned by the State as held by the trial court'!
c
Mr. Kapil Sibal learned Senior Advocate for the appellant-State Cl1ntended
that tirstly the double storeyed building was not part of the .Jallowkhana wmplex.
secondly C\'en if it was so. the State of Punjab had become its owner by adverse
possessinn. and thirdly the same was not the property of the plaintiff-respundcnt
since it is not included in the list of personal properties of the Ruler at the time l)f
n merger. Much argument before the courts below and particularly before the High
Court was centered around the construction of a Farman of the ruler of the State
made on 28th Magh Samvat 1981. equivalent approximately to 13th February
1925 AD. Ifs original in Urdu in English Alphabets followed by its English
translation is given hereafter:

E URDU VERSION

··Nakai Az Asal mashmoola misal no. 1020 confidential rec1)rd Kapurthala
State.

Minjanib Jagatjit Singh Maharaj Kapurthala. Apne sab pisaraan ko apni
F Oudh (wagia subajat mutahida) ki jaidad bataur hiba hissa rasadi de chuka hoon-
uske baad yeh hukam sadar kiyajaatahai keh mere baad TikkaSahib Raja Paramjit
Singh bataur haqonq wali ahad meri. tamam jaidad bakaya har .kisam ka wahid
maalik banega. Aur isi tareh se yeh laazam hoga keh har aanewala wali ahad
ahluwalia khandan ki rawayat ke madenazar Ahluwalia khaandan ki tawarikhi
hawclian waqia Kapurthala. Baba.Tassa Singh Haveli aur Nihal Mahal mausOl)ma
G
bataur J allowkhana ka bhi maalik wa kaabiz reh kar is imarat ki tawarikhi haisi yat
aur ehtaram ko kaim rakhega, jo imarat wabasta hain. taake Ahluwalia missal ka
chirag ta-doamis imarat mein roshan rehch. Auris imarat ki malkiat wa kaabaziyat
hhi meri deegar jaidao se ilahida tassawar ki jakar.bahaq har anewala wali ahad
H ke haq men mansoob hogi. Lihaza tehrir hiza bataur yaad-daasht kc likh kar.rakh
STATE OF PUNJAB'" BRIG. SUKHJIT SIJ\'.GH (PUNCHHI. J.] 951

di hai ki indul haajil kaam awe. Fakat tehrir 28 Magh Samvat 1981. A

Daskhat Beharoofd Urdu (Jagatjit Singh) Maharaja Kapurthala - Bamai
Mohar"

ENGLISH TRANSLATION
B
··copy of the original on file no. 1020. Conficlential Record Kapurthala State.

On the part of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh Kapurthala. To all my sons I have
already gifted. in accordance with their respective shares, my properties in Oudh
(situate in United Provinces), After that it is ordained that after me Tikka Sahib
(heir apparent) Raja Paramjit Singh by his right of primogeniture would become c
the sole owner of my entire remaining properties. In the same manner it would be
.... obligatory on each succeeding heir apparent, keeping in view the traditions of the
Ahluwalia family, to be also owning and possessing the historic havelis of
Ahluwalia dynasty situated at Kapurthala, Haveli Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal
Mahal, known as Jallowkhana, maintaining its historic character and respect D
. which is connected to this structure; so that the lamp of the Ahluwalia dynesty is
kept alight in this structure perpetually. Further the ownership and possession of
this structure be also treated separate from my other properties, and this shall vest
in favour of each succeeding heir apparent. Therefore, this writing is made and
kept for record to be put to use whenever necessary. ·
E
'· Date of ordaining 28th Magh Samvat 1981 ( 13-2-1925 A.O. approximately)

Signature in Urdu Jagatjit Singh Maharaj a Kapurthala and Seal."

We have done the exercise to translate the Farman ourselves, for we found
F
that the translations done by the courts below at various points, were not happily
worded. Urdu, for decades, was once the official language in that part of the
country and had remained court language, even after the independence, till State
languages took over. We thought it appropriate to put the matter in the right
perspective, since the Farman had to be read as a whole and then construed, to meet
the challenge of Mr. Sibal. G

Now it is beyond doubt that the ruler of an Indian State was in the position
of a sovereign. and his command was the law. His Farman had the strength and
potency of law made by an elected legislature and his acts, administrative or
executive, were sovereign in character. The Farman above referred to has
H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199~) 3 S.C.R.

A necessarily to be imported with those attributes. When read as a whole it reveals
three important facwrs:

(I) The historic havelis namely, Haveli Babajassa Singh and Nihal Mahal,
which had commonly come to be known as Jallowkhana was not those
buildings alone but the entire structure or complex containing those palaces,
B appurtenances, and open spaces as part of its fortification, otherwise
Jallowkhana would not have been referred to in singular, when the palaces
were referred to in plural.

(2) the c1)mplex as an integrated whole was ordained to be neither State
property nor the personal property of the Ruler. It's ownership and posses-
c sion in the hands of each succeeding heir apparent by primogeniture was
demised perpetually so as to keep the name of the Ahluwalia dynasty
perpetuated in the fallowkhana as such. It is in the singular sense that it was ....
ordained that its historic character and respect to the fortification shall be
maintained to keep the family flame alight; and

D (3) the structure known as Jallowkhana was to have a separate and special
proprictory status in as much as it was thenceforth to remain neither the
separate property of the ruler nor that of the State but a property settled on
a titleholder for keeping the family name alive perpetually and vesting it in
each succeeding heir apparent by the rule of primogeniture. It was in the
nature of an impersonal estate as opposed to private property or private
E
estate.

Now creating such kin.ct of a special estate undeniably was within the
cnmpetence of the ruler. His creative dimension and imaginative skill need not -
have conformed to any set standards or patterns known to jurisprudence or law. His
sovereign will could have been expressed in various innovations. And this is an
F
instance in which he put his sentiment, attached to the complex, at a pedestal at
which it wa~ neither to be treated as State property nor personal property either for
him or in the hands of the succeeding heirs apparent in the line of primogeniture.
It· s ownership and possession in the hands of each succeeding heir apparent was
• -

G
devised as purposive, for perpetually keeping its integrity and the name of the
Ahluwalia dynasty alive, the Jallowkhana structure symbolising such continuance
by its special status and reverence.
...
Once it is held that Jallowkhana complex is one integrated property, the
argument of Mr. Sibal to the contrary is of no substance. Whatever is composed
thereof is Jallowkhana. There cannot be two owners to such property. The property
H must remain with the heir apparent. The State of Punjab cannot partially be an heir
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BRIG. SUKHJIT SINGH [PUNCHHI, .I.I. 953

- ·.r
apparent. On the other hand when the plaintiff-respondent terms the State of A
Punjab as a licensee, his plea cannot be negatived on the mere plea that no licence
fee was agreed to· be paid. Payment of licence fee is not an essential attribute for
the subsistence of a licence. The mere fact that the licence is of long duration dating
back to the year 1925, as suggested by some of the plaintiffs witnesses, orof 1947
as said by the witnesses of the State, is of no consequence. Permissive possession,
however long, cannot by itself be said to have become hostile by a "long lapse of B
time··, more so, on property, the nature and character of which is unique and
singular, having attributes of being impersonal. Such status of the property rules
out the second objection of Mr. Sibal regarding adverse possession for which even
an issue was not claimed in the courts below keeping apart the pleadings. Thirdly
for the ruler having not listed Jallowkhana complex as part of his personal
properties at the time of merger, is for the reason that it was not his personal c
property. Thus not agreeing with Mr. Sibal we go on to hold that title to the double
storeyed building in question could not be divested from the plaintiff due to the
unique and singular character of the property, it having attributes of being
impersonal, as also by mere lapse of time, or on account of non-payment of any
licence fee or rent or on adverse possession, for which there is no plea, as well as
D
the property in dispute being an integral part of a complex, to which complex the
claim of the State to its ownership has failed, and finally hold that the ruler on
merger of his State need not have claimed this to be his personal property to
maintain the instant suit and seek relief. This determination leads us to hold that
the State of Punjab has no title to the disputed property and hence must obey the
mandatory injunction issued by the lower appellate court as confirmed by the High E
Court. We, however, go on to observe that the mandatory injunction granted by the
lower appellate court is so weakly worded that it is capable of being evaded totally,

- and in any event for a very long time to the point of negating it. In any case the
injunction has to be carried out within a reasonable time. Thus, in order to do
complete justice between the parties, we have thought it fit to fix a reasonable time
for its obedience. Let the mandatory injunction issued by the lower appellate court F
be carried out in its entirety, latest by the end of three years, if not earlier, and on
the breach of which the law may take its own course.

With these observations, we dismiss the appeals. In the circumstances, the
parties shall bear their own costs.
G

G.N. Appeals dismissea.
·- .,.