Holding

The Deed of Settlement created a specific endowment under Section 6(19), making the trust a public trust within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Summary

The appellant, W.N. Allal Sundaram, challenged a declaration that the Bagyammal Trust was a public trust under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, asserting it was a private family trust. The dispute centered on a Deed of Settlement dated 4 June 1926, which entrusted the construction and maintenance of a choultry for pilgrims of the Sree Agastheeswara Swamiya Devasthanam Temple. The Supreme Court examined the definitions of "specific endowment" and "religious charity" in Section 6(19) of the Act and held that the deed created a specific endowment because the choultry was dedicated to public use during religious festivals. Consequently, the trust fell within the scope of the Act and was a public trust. The Court found the trial judge erred in concluding the absence of a specific endowment and affirmed the High Court's reversal. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Deed of Settlement creating a choultry constitutes a "specific endowment" within the meaning of Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Whether the trust in question is a public trust governed by the Act or a private family trust.

Legislation cited

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959s. 6(19), s. 63(d), s. 69, s. 70

Subjects

specific endowmentreligious charitypublic trustHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Actchoultrydeed of settlementTamil Nadu trust law

Judgment

194 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 14 S.C.R. 194
REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A W. N. ALLAL SUNDARAM
v.
THE COMMISSIONER H.R. & C.E. ADMN. DEPARTMENT &
ORS.
B (Civil Appeal No. 8349 of 2017)
NOVEMBER 22, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
C
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959:
ss. 63(d) and 6(19) – Trust – Whether a private family Trust
or a ‘specific endowment’ falling under purview of the Act – Held:
D The ‘Deed of Settlement’ entrusted construction of choultry to be
specifically utilised for the purpose of extending facilities to pilgrims
who visited ‘Devasthanam’ i.e. for the use of general public – Thus,
the property was endowed specifically for the performance of a
religious charity in the temple and was covered within the scope of
E definition of ‘specific endowment’ in s. 6(19).
Words and Phrases:
‘Specific endowment’, ‘religious charity’ and ‘religious
endowment’ – Meaning of, in the context of Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
F
Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments declared that the Trust in question was a Public
Trust. The order was confirmed in appeal. Plaintiff ’s suit for
declaring the Trust in question as private Trust was decreed by
trial court. The order of trial court was reversed by Single Judge
G of High Court. Appeal against the order of Single Judge was
dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present
appeal.

H
194
W. N. ALLAL SUNDARAM v. THE COMMNR. H.R. & C.E. 195
ADMN. DEPT.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
HELD : 1. A ‘specific’ endowment is defined in s.6(19) of
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959 to mean: (i) Any property or money endowed for the
performance of any specific service in a Math or temple; or (ii)
Any property or money endowed for the performance of any B
charity in a Math or temple; or (iii) Any property or money
endowed for the performance of any other religious charity.
[Para 12] [202-H; 203-A-B]
2. The expression ‘religious charity’ is defined to mean a
public charity associated with Hindu festivals or observances of C
a religious character, whether or not it is connected to a temple
or ‘Math’. [Para 13] [207-B-C]
Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar [1965] 3 SCR 168
– referred to. D
3. In the present case, it emerges from the Deed of
Settlement dated 4 June 1926 that the trustees initially settled a
plot of land for the construction of a choultry in 1921. The choultry
which was in connection with the activities of the Devasthanam
was found to be inadequate to meet the requirements of the E
devotees during religious festivals. Consequently, on 4 June 1926,
a Deed of Settlement was executed under which predecessor-in-
interest of the suit property was entrusted with the construction
of an additional choultry. The choultry was to be specifically
utilised for the purpose of extending facilities to pilgrims who
visited the Devasthanam. There was a restraint on the creation F
of an encumbrance either on the choultry or on the land. The
choultry was to be utilised at all times for the use of the general
public. No right could be claimed by the predecessor-in-interest
on the choultry. The choultry was to be maintained by her, her
descendants or her nominees. [Para 15] [207-B-D] G
4. In view of the clear terms emerging from the deed, the
definition of the expression ‘specific endowment’ in Section 6(19)
is attracted. The purpose of the Act of 1959 is to consolidate the

H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A law relating to the administration and governance of Hindu
religious and charitable institutions and endowments in the State
of Tamil Nadu. The property was endowed specifically for the
performance of a religious charity in the temple and was covered
within the scope of definition of ‘specific endowment’ in Section
6(19). The Trial Judge was evidently in error in coming to the
B
conclusion that there was an absence of a ‘specific endowment’
within the meaning of Section 6(19). The High Court was entirely
correct in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. [Paras 15
and 16] [205-D-E]
M J Thulasiraman v. Hindu Religious & Charitable
C Endowment Admn. (2019) 8 SCC 689 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1965] 3 SCR 168 referred to Para 13
(2019) 8 SCC 689 relied on Para 14
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8349
of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.2006 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in A.S. No. 700 of 1997.
E S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, A.S. Vairavan,
R. Sudhakaran, Hardik Gautam, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vinodh Kanna B., A. Lenin Rajasehar, G. Ananda Selvam,
D. Sreenivasan, Ms. Kavita Bhardwaj, G. Kanimozhi, Ravindra
Keshavrao Adsure, M. Yogesh Kanna, Advs. for the Respondents.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 27 October 2006 of a
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The
G original plaintiff is in appeal, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court
reversing the judgment and decree of the First Assistant Judge of the
City Civil Court at Madras.
2. The appellant instituted OS no 5916 of 1990 before the City
Civil Court at Madras seeking two reliefs:
H
W. N. ALLAL SUNDARAM v. THE COMMNR. H.R. & C.E. 197
ADMN. DEPT. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(i) The setting aside of an order passed by the Commissioner, A
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments1 Administration
Department on 21 March 1990; and
(ii) A declaration that the Bagyammal Trust is not a ‘specific
endowment’ falling under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 19592. B
3. The case of the appellant is that the trust in respect of Sri
Swamiya Dhamodara Perumal Temple is not a public trust. The Deputy
Commissioner, HR and CE Administration Department issued a notice
stating that the Bagyammal Trust is a public trust. The appellant claimed
that the plaint schedule property had been settled in favour of Bagyammal3
by her predecessors under a Deed of Settlement in pursuance of which C
she was in possession and enjoyment of the property between 1928 and
1959. Bagyammal is alleged to have executed a Deed of Settlement in
favour of Raju Chettiar. On his death in 1954, it was alleged that his wife
Jagathambal succeeded to the property as his sole heir. Jagathambal is
alleged to have settled the property in favour of her son-in-law W S D
Natarajan Chettiar. He is stated to have taken over possession of the
property and to have been in control until his death in 1968. The appellant,
as his son, claims to have succeeded to the property.
4. The case of the appellant is that the trust which was created by
Bagyammal is a private family trust which would not attract the provisions
E
of the Act of 1959. A proceeding4 was instituted under Section 63(a)
before the Deputy Commissioner, HR and CE Administration Department
seeking a declaration to that effect. On 3 October 1986, the Deputy
Commissioner dismissed the proceeding. On 21 March 1990, an appeal
against the order of the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed by the
first respondent. This led to the institution of a suit by the appellant under F
Section 70(1). On 27 October 1995, the Trial Judge decreed the suit.
5. In appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed
the judgment of the Trial Court on 27 October 2006. A Letters Patent
Appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable under
Section 100(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. G
1
“HR and CE”
2
“Act of 1959”
3
The High Court uses the word ‘Pakkiyammal’. However, the Deed of Settlement
dated 4 June 1926 marked as Exhibit-A1 uses the expression ‘Bagyammal’. For the
sake of convenience, this Court in the present judgment is using the term ‘Bagyammal’.
4
OA 12 of 1984 H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A 6. A Special Leave Petition was instituted before this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution in order to challenge the judgment of the
learned Single Judge. Leave was granted on 4 May 2017.
7. Chapter V of which Section 63 is a part, contains provisions
relating to enquiries. Section 63 is in the following terms:
B “63. 5[Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] to decide
certain disputes and matters
Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided,
6
[the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as
the case may be], shall have power to inquire into and decide
C the following disputes and matters:—
(a) whether an institution is religious institution;
(b) whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee;
(c) whether any property or money is a religious endowment; (d)
D whether any property or money is a specific endowment;
(e) whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any
honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and
what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to
any other matter;
E (f) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a
religious or secular character; and whether any property or money
has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular uses; and
(g) where any property or money has been given for the support
of an institution which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular
F character, or the performance of any service or charity connected
with such an institution or the performance of a charity which is
partly of a religious and partly of a secular character or where
any property or money given is appropriated partly to religious
and partly to secular uses, as to what portion of such property or
G money shall be allocated to religious uses.” (Emphasis supplied)
8. Section 63 provides that the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy
Commissioner shall have power to inquire into and decide disputes of
the nature specified in clauses (a) to (g). Among them, in clause (d) is
5
Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995
6
H Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995
W. N. ALLAL SUNDARAM v. THE COMMNR. H.R. & C.E. 199
ADMN. DEPT. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

whether any property is a specific endowment. Section 69 provides for A
an appeal to the Commissioner against the order of the Joint or Deputy
Commissioner. Section 70 provides for the institution of a suit by a party
aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner in appeal, and relating
inter alia to any of the matters specified in Section 63.
9. In the present case, the controversy turns on whether the original B
Deed of Settlement dated 4 June 1926 was in the nature of a ‘specific
endowment’ within the meaning of Section 63(d). The term ‘specific
endowment’ is defined by Section 6(19) in the following terms:
“(19) “specific endowment” means any property or money
endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity C
in a math or temple, or for the performance of any other religious
charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in
Explanation (1) to clause (17).
Explanation (1). — Two or more endowments of the nature
specified in this clause, the administration of which is vested in a D
common trustee, or which are managed under a common scheme
settled or deemed to have been settled under this Act, shall be
construed as a single specific endowment for the purposes of this
Act.
Explanation (2). — Where a specific endowment attached to a E
math or temple is situated partly within the State and partly outside
the State, control shall be exercised in accordance with the
provisions of this Act over the part of the specific endowment
situated within the State.”
The expressions ‘religious charity’ and ‘religious endowment’ are F
defined in clauses (16) and (17) of Section 6 in the following terms:
“(16) “religious charity” means a public charity associated with a
Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether it
be connected with a math or temple or not;
(17)”religious endowment” or “endowment” means all property G
belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or
temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service
or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other
religious charity; and includes the institution concerned and also
the premises thereof, but does not include gifts of property made
H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A as personal gifts to the archaka, service-holder or other employee
of a religious institution;
Explanation (1).— Any inam granted to an archaka, service- holder
or other employee of a religious institution for the performance of
any service or charity in or connected with a religious institution
shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the archaka, service-
B
holder or employee, but shall be deemed to be a religious
endowment.
Explanation (2).— All property which belonged to, or was given
or endowed for the support of a religious institution, or which was
given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity
C of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious
charity shall be deemed to be a “religious endowment” or
endowment” within the meaning of this definition, notwithstanding
that, before or after the date of the commencement of this Act,
the religious institution has ceased to exist or ceased to be used as
a place of religious worship or instruction or the service or charity
D has ceased to be performed:
Provided that this Explanation shall not be deemed to apply in
respect of any property which vested in any person before the
30th September 1951, by the operation of the law of limitation.”
10. The dispute in the present case involves an interpretation of
E the Deed of Settlement dated 4 June 1926. The document was marked
as Exhibit-A1. It was executed in favour of Bagyammal by the trustees
of the Sree Agastheeswara Swamiya Devasthanam Temple. In 1921,
the Trustees conveyed a plot of land in favour of Mangadu Ellappa
Chettiar for the setting up of a choultry7 to facilitate the activities of the
F Devasthanam. The choultry was found to be inadequate to meet the
requirements of the devotees who came to attend religious festivals.
Hence, considering the need to develop the temple and for the
convenience of the devotees, it was found that the construction of another
choultry had become necessary. The Trustees agreed to hand over
possession of the property to Bagyammal. Insofar as material, the Deed
G of Settlement provides thus:
7
Choultry has been defined as: “A hall, shed, or supported roof, used as a resting-place
for travellers, and for public business.” C. Fennell (Ed.), The Stanford Dictionary of
Anglicised Words and Phrases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1892).
Choultry has also been defined as “ A public lodging place, a shelter for travellers“.
Wilson’s Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms, London W.H. Allen, 2 nd Edition,
H p. 108.
W. N. ALLAL SUNDARAM v. THE COMMNR. H.R. & C.E. 201
ADMN. DEPT. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

“Witnesseth that a ground plot was given in possession to Mangadu A
Ellappa Chettiyar residing at House No. 4, Moottaikaran Street,
Muthialpet, Chennai Pattinam in the year 1921, and a big choultry
having the constructed and relating to the Sacred activities
of the Devasthanam being done properly and since the said
choultry does not contain sufficient space to receive big
B
crowd attending the festivals during the months of Aadi,
and considering the development of the temple and since
we thought that construction of another choultry had
become necessary and on our request made to K. Kandasamy
Chettiar at the village of Thiruvottiyr. He, with the help of his
daughter along with Bagyammal [sic] w/o Late. Thirupathi C
Narayana Samy Chettiar had agreed to construct the
choultry, and therefore according to the boundaries mentioned in
the schedule below, all the four of us have unanimously and in
writing have agreed to handover possession of the said
property to the said Ammal and there is no right or interest
D
either for us or our generation in future on the said property
of land being taken in possession by above said Bagyammal
and she can construct the free choultry by forming
Silasasanam and she shall maintain the same till her life
time and afterwards make provision permanently for the
heirs and agents to be appointed and shall maintained the E
same, the above said shall be utilized at all times for the
use of the public. It should not be let out for rent. No right
shall be claimed by her on this choultry. The boundaries for
the said choultry shall be ascertained by the heirs and agents
appointed by Bagyammal. Even if tax arises for the said choultry
F
it shall be dealt with by the parties of Bagyammal only. In the
above choultry… Hindu Pilgrims shall be allowed to stay for
three days for performance of marriage and other auspicious
function and one day, two days and three days for
Devasthanam purposes for Bagyammal and her parties and
at their own desire, may be utilized the place for auspicious G
functions. No place should be given for persons to misuse or
commit unclean at acts. The heirs or agents shall not execute any
mortgage, sale etc relating to the said choultry and the ground
plot.”
(Emphasis supplied) H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A 11. The issue before the High Court was whether the above
settlement constituted a specific endowment within the meaning of Section
6(19) of the Act of 1959. The High Court held that the recitals in Exhibit-
A1 indicated that Bagyammal was entrusted with the suit property only
to construct an additional choultry to accommodate the devotees of Sree
Agastheeswara Swamiyar Devasthanam Temple. The Deed of
B
Settlement indicated that the public would be entitled to use the choultry.
Bagyammal was restrained from creating any encumbrance on the
property. In the view of the High Court:
“Here also under Ex. A.1 Pakkiyammal was given only a right
to construct an additional choultry in the suit property and
C there was endowment created by dedicating the same to
the use of the public particularly to those devotees who
throng the temple during Thai and Adi festivals. Since the
Choultry, which is in existence could not accommodate them the
trustee who wrote Ex. A.1 had felt that an additional choultry is
D absolutely necessary to accommodate the devotees who visit the
temple during the months of Thai and Adi. Pakkiyammal was
given a right of maintenance of the above said choultry and she
was not given any right to neither use the choultry for more than
three days or to get any income from out of the above said choultry.
It has further been specifically stated in Ex. B.1 that only out of
E her own income Pakkiyammal has to maintain the above said
choultry. So, the above said dedication of choultry to the
public under Ex. A.1 is only an endowment which will attract
the provision contemplated under Section 63(a) of the HR
& CE Act.” (Emphasis supplied)
F The High Court held that the endowment was for a specific purpose:
“Under Ex. A.1 there is a specific endowment to the effect that
the choultry to be constructed by the Pakkiyammal is to be
endowed for the purpose of public use.”

G 12. Shri S Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel assailed the
judgment of the High Court and submitted that there was no specific
endowment by the Deed of Settlement of 4 June 1926 within the meaning
of that Section 6(19). In assessing the correctness of the submission, it
is necessary to analyse the definition of the expression ‘specific
endowment’ in Section 6(19). A specific endowment is defined to mean:
H
W. N. ALLAL SUNDARAM v. THE COMMNR. H.R. & C.E. 203
ADMN. DEPT. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(i) Any property or money endowed for the performance A
of any specific service in a math or temple; or
(ii) Any property or money endowed for the performance
of any charity in a math or temple; or
(iii) Any property or money endowed for the performance
of any other religious charity. B

13. The expression ‘religious charity’ is defined to mean a public
charity associated with Hindu festivals or observances of a religious
character, whether or not it is connected to a temple or math. Explaining
the expression ‘religious charity’, Justice J C Shah, speaking for a three
judge Bench of this Court in Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious C
and Charitable Endowments v Narayana Ayyangar8 held:
“4…Clause (13) of Section 6 defines “religious charity” as meaning
“a public charity associated with a Hindu festival or observance
of a religious character, whether it be connected with a math or
temple or not”. The definition prescribes two conditions which go D
to constitute a religious charity: there must be a public charity and
that charity must be associated with a Hindu festival or observance
of a religious character. If these be fulfilled, a public charity will
be a religious charity, even if it is not connected with a math or
temple.” E
14. In a recent three judge Bench decision of this Court in M J
Thulasiraman v Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Admn9,
this Court while dealing with interpretation of a stone inscription to
determine whether the nature of the institution called ‘Bakers Choultry’
amounted to specific endowment under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious F
and Charitable Endowments Act 1959, held thus:
“14. In the present case, the rock inscription in the “Bakers
Choultry”, which governs the functioning of the choultry, provides
for the feeding of Brahmins. This is clearly a charity which benefits
the “public”, in line with the holding of the aforementioned
G
Constitution Bench decision of this Court.
...

8
(1965) 3 SCR 168
9
(2019) 8 SCC 689 H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A 16. As such, the public charity described in the rock inscription,
being associated with a religious festival, constitutes a religious
charity as defined under the Act.
17. As already mentioned above, under Section 6(19) of the
Act, the definition of “specific endowment” includes any
B money that has been endowed for the performance of a
religious charity. Following our holding that the rock
inscription provides for a religious charity, it is sufficient to
show that money has been endowed for the performance of
the same for it to constitute a specific endowment under
the Act.
C
18. While the word “endow”, and the connected word
“endowment”, have actually not been defined under the Act, from
their usage in the Act and judgments on the subject, it is clear that
they relate to the idea of giving, bequeathing or dedicating
something, whether property or otherwise, for some purpose. In
D the context of the Act, the purpose is with respect to religion or
charity. [See P. Ramanatha Aiyar: The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn.,
p. 634, 635; Pratapsinghji N. Desai v. Charity
Commr. [Pratapsinghji N. Desai v. Charity Commr., 1987 Supp
SCC 714] , para 8]. In the present case, the rock inscription
E clearly provides for the utilisation of money from the
“Bakers Choultry” for the purposes of performing the
charitable activity of feeding Brahmins during the specified
religious festivals. As such, it is clear that the rock
inscription creates a “specific endowment” as specified
under Section 6(19) of the Act, which falls within the ambit
F of the Act.
...
23. In the facts of the present appeal, the contents of the rock
inscription are sufficient for us to hold that there has been a valid
G divestment and to reject the contention of the counsel for the
appellants. The rock inscription clearly indicates that the choultry
is to be managed by the community of bakers, who will use the
balance funds for the benefit of others. Further, the inscription
also states that the managers do not have any power of
alienation with respect to the choultry. In the present appeal
H
W. N. ALLAL SUNDARAM v. THE COMMNR. H.R. & C.E. 205
ADMN. DEPT. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

therefore, as in M.R. Goda Rao Sahib [M.R. Goda Rao A
Sahib v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 653] , there has been a
clear divestment of the right to receive a certain part of the income,
with the inscription also stipulating a bar on the right of the
manager to transfer the choultry.” (Emphasis supplied)
15. In the present case, it emerges from the Deed of Settlement B
dated 4 June 1926 that the trustees initially settled a plot of land for the
construction of a choultry in 1921. The choultry which was in connection
with the activities of the Devasthanam was found to be inadequate to
meet the requirements of the devotees during religious festivals.
Consequently, on 4 June 1926, a Deed of Settlement was executed under
which Bagyammal was entrusted with the construction of an additional C
choultry. The choultry was to be specifically utilised for the purpose of
extending facilities to pilgrims who visited the Devasthanam. There was
a restraint on the creation of an encumbrance either on the choultry or
on the land. The choultry was to be utilised at all times for the use of the
general public. No right could be claimed by Bagyammal on the choultry. D
The choultry was to be maintained by Bagyammal, her descendants or
her nominees. In view of the clear terms emerging from the deed, the
definition of the expression ‘specific endowment’ in Section 6(19) is
attracted. The purpose of the Act of 1959 is to consolidate the law
relating to the administration and governance of Hindu religious and
charitable institutions and endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu. The E
property was endowed specifically for the performance of a religious
charity in the temple and was covered within the scope of definition of
‘specific endowment’ in Section 6(19).
16. The learned Trial Judge was evidently in error in coming to
the conclusion that there was an absence of a ‘specific endowment’ F
within the meaning of Section 6(19). The High Court was entirely correct
in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. Consequently, there is no
merit in the appeal.
17. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs. G

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal dismissed.

H