The High Court · 2025

...Plaintiff l to 3 Mathatheetha Sai Meditation Centre, Warangal rep. by Sole Trustee' Chunkari Komaraiah, H.No.7-6-88 Kapuwada, Hanamkonda. Chunkari Komaraiah, S/o Late Sri Ramaswamy, Age.50 years, Sole trustee, Mathatheetha Sai Meditation Centre, Warangal, R/o. H.No.7-6-88, Kapuwada, Hanamkonda. Died per LRs Respondent Nos.7 to 1 1 7 --7

6. Y. Manohar Rao, Advocate Commissioner Dist.Court Pre r ses Warangal 7 ch pushpalatha w/o Late ch Komuraiah, As" M;;Jl'tiLtiltiJ;1r1JJ Kapuwada, Hanamkonda

8. Ch. Trinadh Dutt, S/0. Late Ch. Komuraiah, Age:ftllalcr R/o. H.No.7-6-88, Kapuwada, Hanamkonda 9 Smt. Arpitha Triveni Wo. Sujan Kumar, D/o Late C Konr raiah, R/o. H.No.7- 6-88, Kapuwada, Hanamkonda.

10.Tara Triveni, D/o. Late C. Komuraiah, Age: lvlajor R/o H.No 7-6-88, Kapuwada, Hanamkonda. 1 1 . Chandipriya D/o. Late C. Komuraiah, Age. Malor R/o. H. No 7-6-88, Kapuwada, Hanamkonda Respondents 7 to 11 ate brought on record as LRs of i rceased R-5 as per court order dated 31-10-08 in ASI\/P 2339/08. ...Respondents l.A. NO: 1 OF 2003(CMP. NO: 22209 OF 20 03) Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that rn the cr :umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ,11ay be pleased to suspend the decree and JUdgment in O.S.No.22 of 2000 dat d 5-9-2003 on the file of the court of the lll Additional District Judge, Warangal ,ending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy Counsel for the Respondents No.'l to 3: Sri P. Prabhakar Re, dy Counsel for the Respondents No.7 to 1 1: Sri D.V. Seethararr r Murthy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT No . 2595 0F 2003 J UDGMENT: Heard Sri Y Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf o[ appellants and Sri D V Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counscl on bchall of Respondents 7 to

11. Apllellants arc defcndants 3 to 10 in O S No 22 of

2. 2OOO on tt-re tile of thc III Additional District Judge's Court' Warangal. Thc suit u'as filed secking the reliel of declaralion' cviction / re storation of possession, rendition ol accounts and permanent injunction in favour of defendant No 1 - Trust for which defendant No 2 is thc sole Trustec and against Defendant No. 3 Society and Defendants No 4 lo lO The suit was decreed on 05.09 2003 against which the appellants are beforc this Court.

3. The parties are arrayed as they are shown in the suit, for easy rcference. The case of plaintiffs - respondents' in brief is that 4. they are disciples of defendant No' 2 who is a Yogi u'ho is disseminating the knowledge and practice of Yoga' Meditation and treating and healing the people u'ith Yogic Therapy and \ .\ F-+; 2 mcdicincs and siince his child hoocl, he cvincerl tnlrsual and extraordinary intcresl and used Lo attend on iacll-rus and Sanvasis to acquire spiritual kr.rowledgc from thcrr an<l that ht; acc:ompanietl thcrn zrnd spcnt scvcral months in li hrkesit whcn hc u,as 12 vear old and acquired knowledge ol r rqa , training himself rvith yogic practiccs and Yogic healing o' Lhe sick antl snllcring; hc accluired this knou'lcclgc from l:Lrr r Lrs Yoqi Kali Kambal u,ho I'rad a big Ashram at Himalayan lootl ls and learnr healing properties of various plants, leaves, iti:i:s, etccterit availablc at Himalayan loothills and later, rt:rtrrncd to Hanamkonder and cstablished a center for tcir.rinq Yoga urt Wardhannapct Village, Warangal District in 1( l4 undcr the name and st1le of Mathaatheetha Sai Meditation ,)r.ntcr. It is a Ifublic Charitable Trust and that in appreciatiorr r I i'ris sen.iccs grving Yoga meditation rvith well-known tar I -ic rnodc of Kundalini, Iancl orvners namcly Goli Bakki Rt,, cl-y 6n4 6'o1' Narsimtra Reddy had donated, adjacent Lwo pier.t.: of lancl each admeasuring Ac. 1.00 gts. at Wardhannpct in ( ctober, I 984 cnabling defendant No. 2 specihcally to make tr; r ol' l.he same for his sen,ices; Goii Narsimha Reddy executecl 1 ift set[lement deed on 21 .04.1988 and registered the same anr gift made by his brother Goli Bakki Reddy in October, 198 1 is 1.et to be :i i I I I I { I ) formalized and said total land o[ Ac.2.0O gts donated in favour of delendant No. 2 is on behalf ol Public Charitablc Trust. The said Charitable Trust at Wardhanpct $'as pul on an even keel and is being carricd on regularly ancl dclendzrnt No. 2 started another center near Bhadrakali 'lemple in Warangal. He also startcd another center in the Housing Board Colony at Hanamakonda 11 years therealtcr at lhc request ol residents of said colony. 4 .l . It is eilso thc case ol plaintilfs, defendants 4 to 10 are among those who joincd in the above Yoga Center and very early seemed to have realized the efficac1' and potentialiLies of Yoga Center and earned the conl-rdence of Trust and Defendant No. 2 and began advising him stating it is better to systemize lh€ center's activities ancl organize disciples ernd ensure disciptine in the conduct of activities and aliairs o[ the center' In that connection, defendant No.2 being illiterate allowed defendants 4 lo 1O being highly-educated and well-placed, to do whatever they u'ish and signed several papers blank and typed ones, since, they said that in case of nccd without havrng to return to Warangal, they would use the papers at Hyderabad in connection with registration of center and iater defendant No' 4 to 10 managed to get registered a Society i e 3'd defendant' 4

4.2. It is :rlso the case of the plaintiffs, br.r i usc of the ol scrvices ol clcfendant No. 2, one Nallela Rama S,r rmy and ltis sistcr in lau Smt Lachamma I'rad endowed to tll I Yogashritrl Ac.O.12 gts. ol lzutd in Survcy No- 757 on Lhc wa\ o and in thc vicir-rily of f]haclrakali Temple, Warangal in D<'r , mbcr, 1984. Latt:r, Dcfend:rnt No. 2 got a mediation hall nith i scparare rest room [or Gur-u, Rathroom etc, wcre constructr': u.itlt pakka u'alls and Zinc sheet rools with thc heJp o[' :ontribuLions rcr:civecl frorn thc donors r,r'ho camc foru,ard. In r Ltt_' r:oursc o[ time, a mediation hall u,as constructed for tht' (:tivities and s ith tire constru<:rion of regular building the t.l rter receivcd morc and rnore clisciples. Thereafter, dcfendan t No. 2 had a rvish to install the idol of Shiridi Sai Baba as he d( ls not belonq to any religion, rlt:fcndant No. 2 placed an ordr.r br :rn idol o[ Shiridi Sai Bab:r ol marble stone and after insLal: tion of ldoi it u,as inaugura ted. However, in course of timc the .,hitc collarcd disciples dclcndants No. 4 to 1O started treating ir rs:r Sai Elaba 'lemple ancl installed l-{undi and started collect I g rnitially as Guru Dakshina and slowly hijacked the r.r.hol< buitding by defeating the aims and obje cts of the yoga ccnter .nd converted the yoga cent.er virtually into a Sai Baba Temple rnd collecting offerings and in that connection demolished thl stnrcturcs o[ 5 Guru i-c., defendant No.2 which hc was using. ln the plaint, it is admitted, a Society u'as registered and elections were conducted Lo the said Society etcetcra. Herlce, thc suit was filed for the above said reliefs

5. Delendants I and 2 and 11 remailled ex-parte' Defendants 3 and 5 to t0 liled written staLement According to dcfendants, suit u'as fited r','ith a mola fide intention bv plaintiffs u.ho havc no locus standl and the name of the 2rd delendant rvas u'rongll' dcscribed. Thc main allegation th:rt these defenclants have disrupted the Trust propcrty of defendanl No 1 for u'hich thc Delendant No. 2 is the eillegcd sole Trustee and that they are running Defendant No.3 Society and Dclendant No 2 is not allowed to conduct the activities of Dcfendant No 3 premises g,hich is wrongly described as Trust propcrty and that during May, 200O having suspected defendant No' 2 and his men were making aLLempts to obtain some ex-partc orders lrom the court of law in a suit or original petition liled by them to illegall1' and torce[ully to occupy properties of 3*t defcndant, these defendants filed caveats and to overcome the pending caveats' defendant No.2 got filed present suit through his agents by making as 2'd defendant and by bypassing the caveats, plaintifts obtained ex p(lrte interim orders and tried to take 6 - illcgal possession of prolterrics belonging to th( ..,1 dcfcndar.rt u'hich u,as r:lfr:r:tivei-y tlltarted by timely ir) ( rvention b1, dcfendants rrrrcl t hc l.( dclerldant Trust does rtr crist at all a:rd lhc surt hlr:d lli rcspcct of non-existing ''ntsL is not maintainablc :rnd that in 1984, dcfendants 2. 4 tt.t i ernd 10 and ccrtain other dhzrrmic-minded pe rsons of Waral.l al ri ho have faith in Shiridi S:ri Batr:r entertained an idea ,l rlcvcloping Shiricli Sai l]atra Cr-rlt among [he people of \\ ariLrrg:rl zrnd clccidecl to construct m:rndir lor Shiridi Sai Baba;r rd r.ommittce n'as constitutt-'cl anrl got it registered on 2l .( 2.1()85 rt,ith rcgistration No. 353/85 and rhe lst President of rlr: Society rr,as dclendants No. 2 and subsequently, Smt. R. SL r heshna Devi g'as aclmittecl as hereditary member and three , thr:rs as life rnembers. On 1b.02. 1987, defendant No. 9 aclr rittccl as life rnembcr ancl thcreby, the 3rd defendant Socit.'y c;rme into exislcnce and conducting all activities in the Man 1ir rLnd u'hcn the Societf is in sezrrch of suitable place for c.r:rstruction of Mandir onc Nallela Rama Su,amy and Nallela La: ramrna came foru,ard to donatc Ac.O.12 gts. of land out of Surr ry No. 757 ol Hanamkonda Rer.e nuc Mandal near Bhadrakaii Ternple and defendant No. 2 on behalf of the 3.a defendant So iety accepted the gift as President of the Managing Committcc i nd:rs the 2,rd 7 defendant had some knowledge about mediation, he used to conduct mediation classes in the shed for school and collegc studcnts tn order to propagate the teachings of Baba in that context uscd to be callecl as Guru ancl pzrkka construction of the building commenced in 1989 and the preserlt hall is knou'n as I)waraka Mai Hall and management of defcndant No 3 Socicty gained cor-rfidcnce of general public of Warangal and thc idol of Shiridi Sai Baba t'as installed during 1993 Tu'o pcrsons namell' C- Dayakar Reddy and Chirra 'Jzrnarrdhan hlcd OP No' 367 of 1990 and OP No. 653 ol 1993 on thc file of the l"t Aclclitional District Judge, Warangal on false grounds and the said Ops. were dismissed. In those Ops, thc 2nd defendant was rcspondent and he along with other respondents gavc joint vak.rlat to the advocate and that when accounts \^'ere checked in September , 7994 the Managing Committce found illegalities and misa ppropriation of funds committed by the rhcn Prcsidcnt at the instance of the 2"d defendant and when Lhe same was questioned, the 2n(i defendant and his men started propagating that thcse defendants have resigned from the membership and [he 2.d defendant tried to induct his rT 'ife, son and daughter and one T. Yellaiah as members of the Society, but' the alter discussion refused to grant M!.naging Committee, \ r.E! 8 membership to them and thesc clefendants hi'e given the details of mcmbc rs of managing committee who u'z r running thc Sot:ret_r', etc( terul. wrth these allcgations the delr rdi|rts I.'r ave ser iousll, opposcd thc suit filed by the plaintiffs 6 'lhc Court belou, re-casted the issucs for consideration s'hrch are as follou,s: l. Whcthr:r thc plaintifls lrave locus stan(L to rnerintain lhc suit? Whr:lh<:r surt is collusive?

2. Wlrcthc r thc suit is hit by lack of lear.c r ndc.r' section 92 CPC and C). I R. 9 ot CPC?

3. Whctl-rer thc sr-rit comcs u,ithin the pun,iel of i\. P Charit:r ble arrcl I Iindu Relrgious Institutior s trnd Enrlori'rnents Act, 1987 (Act 30 of I987)?

4. Whcther Def endant No. I and 3 are ont: a r cl thc sarrre or different institutions on facts or in lau, ) .5. Whcthr'r dclendant No. I is the Trust anc n exislencc?

6. Whetl-rr:r dcfr:ndant No.2 is the sole Trust -. : of Dclendant No. l?

7. Wl-rether tht: suit schedule property belt.t 1s to:rnd vested in dcfcndants No. I and 3?

8. Whcther th(: conduct of defendant No. .l Sok: Trustec of delcndant No. I remaining silent and .t actrvc at the time of lormation and registration of deferxl rnt No. 3 :rnd signi ng the documents thereol', amounts to acquiescence or waiver? 9

9. Whether defendant No. 2 being Honorary President of defendant no. 3 graph or idol in 1993 u'ould alter the character of the trust property and thc aims and objects and purposc of the Defendant No' I Trust or transfer thc defendant No- 1 Trust property in favour o[ dcfendant No' 3 SocielY?

10. Whethcr the installation of Sai Baba photograph or would alter the character of the Trust idol in 1993 the aims and objects and purpose of the propcrty and I Trust or transfer the defendant No l defendant No Trust prollcrt]' in favour of defendant No 3 Society? I L Whether the attempt on the part ol dcfendant No' 1 to indur:t his family mcmbers in dclendant No 3 Socicq- is the rnisconduct on his Part?

12. Whcther Hundi collections and donations from the public to go to defendant No 1 Trust or defendant No' 3 Society?

13. Whether the Sai Baba idol was purchased from the lunds ol defendant No. 1 Trust or Dcfcndant No 3 Socicty? If so, lo whom the idol belongs?

14. Whether the zinc sheets and constructions expenses / investmcnl are made out of funds of defcndant No' I TrusL or delcndant No. 3 Society? If so, to u'hom the said construction s belong? I5. Whether there is any attempt for misappropriation of funds of delcndant No. 1 Trust or defendant No' 3 Society by defendant No. 2 or his men? i6. Whether defendant No. 4 to defendants No' 10 have acted against the interest of defendant No' 1 Trust' Defendant No. 2 sole trustee and defendant No' 3 Society' l0 contran' 1o I he intention of the donors antl ne ob_1ects o[ thc 'I'rusl ?

17. Whcther the conduct of defendant No. 2 r gi,',ir-rg joint vakzrlatlr in lhvoLrr o[ advocatc for defendar r NO. 3 to 10 herr:in, u'lrilc rlcfcnding O. P. Nos. .1,) '/ 1990 :tnd 653/ 1993 on tire file of I Additional Di ttrict Juclge, Warangzrl filcd by one G. Dayaker Reddr and Chirra Janardhan, rr,ould affcct the rights o[ deferrrl nt No. 1 and 2 ovcr thc sr-rit schedulc propert\r? Would t mcan that defendant No. 1 Trust llropertlr is vestcd Ln dcfcn<lant No.3 Socit:t1 ?

18. Whcther thc court lcc paicl is in accor-<[ nce u,ith the proviskrrrs ol-A P, court F'ees and Suits V:rl ration Act? Il not, \\'hirt atr(' th(' legal consequenccs and lcr redr'1

19. Wlrtther dcfcndant No. 1 and defend: nt No. 2 are entitlecl to thc rclief of dcclaration over thr iuit schedule propertv , as claimed in t lre plaint?

20. Whr:thcr dcfendernt No. 1 and defenclz nt No. 2 are entitlcci to thc consequential relief ( I eviction of defer.rdanrs No. 4 to 1O, their represent: ives, agents, proxies and all other persons lrom thr' ;uit schedule propertl'?

21. Whcthcr defendants No. I and 2 rr e entitled to restoration r>f thc suit property, in case dcf ,trdants No. 4 to 1O u'ere found in possession of the suii p roperties rvith requisitc an imus?

22. Whether dr:fcndant No. l and 2 rendrtion of accounts by defendants N<r defendant No. 1? rL e entitled to z to 10 to the I

23. Whether defendants No. l and 2 are entrtled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 4 to 10, their representatives, agcnts. proxies and all persons from projecting thc meditation hall as Sai Baba Temple or otherwise intcrfering or invading the rights of delendant No. 1 Trust to conlinue and carry on yoga tcaching, training and practice and also yogic healing of sick and ailing?

24. Whcther [his court ciin grant any other such and further rclief to the plair-rtiffs? If so, to u'hat rclieP -t Thc trial Court examincd PWs I and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 on behalf of plaintiffs and DWs. I to 3 and got nrarkcd Exs. B-l and B-2 on behalf of defendants. O. Thc point lhat arise lor consideration is whether the decrcc and judgment of [he trial Court can be sustaincd in law ar-rd whether the evidence on record is sufficient to grant leave.

1. Upon considering the case of plaintiffs and delendants and considering the documents filed, the Court belou, decreed the suit. The Court took pains in writing a lcngthy judgment consisting of 295 paragraphs when the plaintiffs havc hled only one document i.e. gift deed dated

28.03.1987. In a suit for declaration, burden is heany on plaintitfs to establish their case. In this case, plaintiffs seek declaratory relief in. favour of defendants 1 and 2, which is unusual. Added to that, thc case o[ plaintiffs is that they are r t2 disciples of dcfi:nclant No. 2. The qucstion is vhcther the disciples can maintzrin the suit of declaration for .efr:ndants I and 2. In thc al>sencc ol anv documentary eviden,.' irelicving thc orai evidence of the 2u,r plarntrlf as PWs.1 anil l, tlre rcliefs sought for cann()L I)c grantcd. Any amount ol dis,' rssiLtn on all thc issues in the Iengthr' .ltrclgment in tlrr atrsenc:e oI documcntary, cvidencc l;y l;elicving the oral e\ , un( C is not permissiblc in L-ru'. Thereforc, this Court has nr tcsitation to hold that the Court belo'"r, did not exercisc tl r jurisdiction vested in it 1;roperl1,.

10. Thc Court trelou' hcld that, plaint ill hirvc locus standi to file the suil. Tl-re reasons given br t cannot be sustained for thc rcasorl, on the one hand, jt thi: case o[ plaintiffs that the 1 sr de fcndant is a public chatrr rrr rle 'l'rust and it is not their case they arc the Trustees of the l'r (lefenclant Trust and it is the ir admitted case they are tlr clisciples of Defendant No. 2. Admittedly, the lst defendat, is il private charitable 'lrust and it is governed by the pr-r r isions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. If it is a Trust, there rnr st br: a Trust deed and the gift deed cannot be equated with a " ust deed and what are the properties of Trust should be me ior-rccl in the said deed. The person, '*,ho reposes or declare: confiden<:e is ,7 13 called 'author ol the Trust' Thc persol'r who accepts the confidence is called Trustee'' The pcrson in whose benefit the confidencc is accepted ts calied 'bencficiary'' Subjcct matter o[ Trust is called 'Trust property'or Trust money'' tJrlder Scction 5,noTrustinrclationtoimmovablepropcrtyisvalidunless declared by a non testamentary instrument in r'r'riting signed by the author ol t I1e 'l'rust or t he Trustce and registered or by the u,ill of thc author o[ thc Trust Seclion 6 dcals with creation of ,I.rust.UndcrSec|ionl3,aTrusteeCanprotectthctitleofTrust propcrt]. When, admittedll', the 1't defcndant is a Trust' it is governecl by thc provisions of the Trusts Act . In such an event, PrinciPal Court of Apptication under Section 34 to the Original Jurisdiction is the rcmedy available under the Act by filing a petition, but not by u'av of a suiL- That apart' in this case, plaintiffs thcmsclves declared as disciples of the 2"d defendant, but llot as mcmbers of Lhe Trust Board or Trustees ofthel..defendant.Ifthesamcistakcnintoconsideration,the suit itself is misconceived and plaintitts are not entitled to any relief. 1l The Court below framed an ISSrre that defendant 2 being a sole Trustee remaining silent and inactive at the time of formation of and registration of the 3'd defendant No t l4 TE.f, -I- amounts to :rccluiescencc and $,aivcr. lt is fh, case of the defendants that the 2n,t defendant acted as Presl( r nt ol Socictr,. and thcre r"r cre elections and plarntilfs zrlso adnrrr ed that thev signed papers. With this background also, the Co r-t t;elo,"r' licld issue No. 8 in lavour of plaintiffs. Similarly, issue 'r rs. (). 1.1, 17, 19 to 22 also rn favour of plaintiffs, in tl.rc air ence o[ any materi.rl evidcnr;r:. Thercfore, thc concltrsions r-r : chccl bt t he Court belos' .rre not in accorda nce r.r.ith lart rr , -1 r:annot bc su stained. lL. Thc Court beloq, having framed an : ]uo 'u liethe r leave is necessarv under Scction 92 CpC' heLr in lavour of plaintilfs that no leave is required and suit is ma, tainable and it is not hit by Section 92 of CPC. In fact, thc Hr,r bL: Suprcme iourt in R.M. Naragana Chettia.r u. lV. ,akshmq.nal Chettiart held that in a suit of Lhis nature, gran I ng of lcave is a pre-condition or a condition o[ precedent lbr. nstitutron of suit.

13. It is brought to the notice of this Corr L rh.ir the 3,d defendant is a society and defendant No. 2 s gnccl ccrtain papers at the instance of defendants 1 to 4 an< subscquently the 3.d defendant Society was registered. Whe rlr r the Society I lrosr; r ssc +a 15 \r'as rcgistered with the consent of defendant No. 2 or not is a matter to be considcred at the instar-rce of members of the 3.d defendant Society. Admittedly, the Society is in posscssion and enjoyment of Shirdr Sai Baba Mandir and aclivities of Mandir are regularly going on and clections s,ere held Lo the Society. Therefore, whether thc acLivitics of thc Socicty can be challengcd in a suit of this nature is also an imporlant question for consideration. Nonc o[ thesc issues are considered by the Court belovr,, therefore, this Court is of the considercd vieu'that the Court belou, excecded its jurisdiction and decreod the suit. Therefore, the findings of the Court belou'are liablc to be set- aside. However, in view o[ the complcx issues of law and fact involved, this Court deems it fit and proper to remit the matter to the Court belou' for fresh considcration on the following points:

1. Whether plaintiffs as disciples o[ the 2ud defendant can maintain the suit for declaration against defendants No.1 and 2. II. When admittedly, the lst defendant is a Trust and it is governed by the Trusts Act, whethcr the suit is maintainable or an Application under Section 34 of the Trusts Act is the appropriate remedy. III. When the suit schedule property is admittedly, a Shiridi Sai Baba Mandir which is run by the 3rd defendant Society, whether l6 - the activities o[ the Sor;iety rcgistered under thL' rrovisions of the Socicties Registration Act can be called in <1Lr: ;l-ioti b1' r,"ay of a suit. IV. Whether the documents rcliecl on b1'plaintills. rrc suffir:ient to grant anv reirt:f' to them. 1+ TI-re Appeal is accordingly, allou,e d. 'l I c lindings o[ the Court beloil' are set aside and the matter is ; r nittccl to thc Court belou frrr fresh consideration, uninflr r, r:e d bl the findings o[ thrs Court, preferably within six mi, lr s lrom thc date ol'rcceipt ol a copy of this judgmcnt. No <:os r f5 Consequently, Miscellaneous Applir ions, il anY shall stand closcd. St), .K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sYcrroru oFFrcER To,

1. 2.

4. 5. arn/P $1... .! t\ The lll Additional District Judge, Warangal. (with re\ord, rf any) One CC to Sri Y Srinivasa Murthy Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Srr D.V. Seetharama Murthy Advocate [OPL]r ;l Two CD Copies SL :r '.' -,=:::=..\ .,.{a@" }lE$D}r,.. i,i' ( t i ().RU0l6 # .\ \.' ,.;; \. ?- - \, (i .+ \-'. I i l-fa HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 JUDGMENT AS.No.2595 of 2003 I ALLOWING THE APPEAL .- \i lrl: