The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M. Govind Reddy The Court made the following: a 'I THE HONOURABLB SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA VARA I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and SECOND APPEAL No.253 of 2025 COIV1MON JUDGMENT: Heard Sri G. Ramakrishna, leamed counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Govind Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6, on admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is prel'erred challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2024 in A.S.No.50 of 2023 on the frle of the Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar ('first appellate Court'), confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2023 in O.S.No.62 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jedcherla ('trial Court'), wherein the suit files seeking perpetual iniunction by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants has been dismissed. I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the present appeal is preferred to condone delay of 234 days in filing of the Second Appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is claiming to be absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.Nos.l80lEE2 and 180/EiE total admeasuring Ac.l - 14 guntas situated at Tatikonda Village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (hereinaftcr referred to as 'suit schedule .- \ RY,J IA I 2025_in/and sA 253 2025 '=qr 1 I '., property'). The appellant purchased the suit schedt I : property under registered sale deed document bearing No.284ll20 ll lated 18.04.2012 from original owners. Thereafter, the suit schedule prc I eny was mutated in the name of the appellant and he was issued pattedar rassbook and title deed. Ever since, he is in peaceful possession by cultiva ing the said land It is the case of the appellant that one T. Dasaratha Rl rultr was original owner and pattedar ol land in Sy.No. I 80 with an e ) tent of Ac. 12-21 guntas. Out of said [and, Ac.4-00 guntas was sold n l'avour ol one Bhuthanna. The said Bhuthanna had two sons and orr, daughter and he registered the said land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas ir: l'avour o1- his two sons and son-in-law (respondent No.l ) through re1-l stered sale deed document bearing No.1305/1981 dated 22.04.19t and dclivered possession. Subsequently, there was settlement bctwee r the sons and son- in-law (respondent No.l ) of Bhuthanna, wherein Bhut r Lnna gave land in Sy.No. 195 to his daughter and son-in-law (respondent ]J r.I ) and the entire a land in Sy.No.l [i0 was given to his two sons i.e., Ponernc ri Venkataiah and Ponemoni Anjaneyulu i.e., Ac.2-00 guntas each. Accorc Lngly, their names were mutated in the revenue records. The said Ponerr,r ri Venkataiah and Ponemoni Anjaneyulu sold land to an extent of Ac.0-3 , luntas each to the appellant for valid sale consideration under registered rrle deed. At this 2 RY,J IA-l _2025 inland sA 253 2025 juncture, the respondents, who are no way concerned with the land in Sy.No.l8O, have interfered with peaceful possession of the appellant leading to filing of the suit.

4. Respondent No.1 opposed the suit claim stating that the suit schedule property was purchased by Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.1 jointly under registered sale deed document bearing No.1305/1981 and the Ac.4-00 guntas of land is in their joint possession. Respondent No.-t has l/3'd share in Ac.4-00 guntas of land in Sy.No.180. The said land was not partitioned by metes and bounds between the owners i.e., Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.1. The identity of land to the extent of Ac. 1- 14 guntas out of Ac.4-00 guntas is not identifiable and in case the suit is decreed there is every possibility of dispossession of respondent No.1 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the sult.

5. The appellant got himself examined as P.W. I and got examined Ponemoni Anjaneyulu as P.W.2. Exs.A-l to A-18 were got marked to prove the ownership and possession. Respondents got examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. t il, 3 --\. -*1 RY,J l\ 1 2025-inland sA 253 2025

6. Upon examining the evidence adduced on record the trial Coutt came to the conclusion that under Ex'B- 1 land in Sy'No' I i t to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas was purchased jointly by Ponemoni VenkrLl riah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.l and as against this evitLt nce there is no evidence about alleged settlement of land in Sy'No' 1') i in favour of respondent No.1 and his wife for the purpose of allotting I .nd to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas in Sy.No.l80 to Ponemoni VenkataiaI and Ponemoni Anjaneyulu by Bhuthana. There is no such document file < Court. In the absence of proof of settlement between the before the trial 'amily members i.e., sons and son-in-law (respondent No.l) of Bhuthanna the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit schedule propertv i i joint property purchased jointly by Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni \njaneyulu and respondent No.l. Further, there is no proof of partiti ,n of said land between the joint purchasers- Therefore, it is held that the land ol the appellant cannot be identified until partition takes pla: r by metes and bounds and therefore, the appellant ought to have filed a I uit for partition. Further, it is held that when identification of land Jrr rchased by the appellant is not done, no injunction can be granted again; \ Ithe basis of the afbrementioned findings, the trial Courl dis co-owners. On nissed the suit. \s. --< 4 RY,J IA_l 2025 _in/and, sA 253 2025 7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, appeal is preferred before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.5O of 2023. The first appellate Court upon hearing the both sides and perusing the evidence adduced before the trial court came to the same conclusion i.e., the suit schedule property is joint property of said Ponemoni Venkataiah, ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.l and the said land was not partitioned by metes and bounds. Therefore, the first appellate Courr also held that the appellant ought to have filed suit for partition and that the injunction cannot be granted against co-owners. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred raising the following substantia[ questions of law: l. [s it a condition precedent for the plaintiff to establish title in a suit for perpetual injunction?

2. Whether revenue records, which are not under challenge, can be said to conclusive proof of orvnership and possession and also have got any presumptive and evidentiary value?

3. Whether'sefiled possession without establishing title enables the plaintiffto obtain a decree for pelpetual injunction? I

4. Whether a person who is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property can seek for perpetual injunction even against true owner?

5. Whether the purchaser ofundivided share ofa coparcener with established possession can be said to be legal or illegal? 5 I I I i RY.J IA_1_2025 tnland sA 253 2025

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Il :mavathi v. V. Hombegowda' held that High Court can enteftain a rept lar second appeal purely on a 'substantial' question of law not even a qll stion of Law or a question of fact. Further, as per the judgment of this (lor rt in Syed Abdul Quddus v. K. Vijaya Laxmi2, the Apex Court in Gurrl rv Kaur v. Kakir held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal ca urot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power rnder Section 100 CPC is very limited and it can be exercised only vr Lere a substantial question of law is raised and fell for consideration.

9. When the substantial questions of law raised in t re present Second Appeal are perused, it is seen that the substantial ques i rn of law No. I is whether it is condition precedent for the plaintiff to estl >lish title in a suit for perpetual injunction. In the instant case, there is no i sue about the title of the appellant. The only issue is shares ofjoint ou'rt rs out of the total extent of Ac.4-00 guntas in Sy.No.l80 are not carved -herefore, the suit schedule property sold by two co-owners to an extent rf Ac.0-37 guntas each is not identifiable. There has to be partition of Ac,z -00 guntas of land between Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu rnd legal heirs of \ ' (zozs) s scc a+z '? 2024 SCC OnLine TS 186 t lzoou l t scc s+e 6 \ i ,-| RY,J IA_l_2025_ir/and sA 253 2025 respondent No.l (respondent Nos.2 to 6). Once the share ofPonemoni venkataiah and Ponemoni Anjaneyulu is identified then out of the said extent of land, Ac.0-37 guntas each has to be given to the appellant' When this kind of division by metes and bounds is not done, the appellant cannot say he is in possession of the unidentified suit schedule property to an extent of Ac. 1- 14 guntas. To sum up, title is not in dispute rather possession is in dispute.

10. Substantial question of law No.2 is about whether the revenue records when unchallenged can be conclusive proof of ownership and possession and whether the said documents have presumptive and evidentiary value. There is no doubt or dispute about entries in revenue records and their evidentiary value in the present matter' I l. Substantial question of law No.3 is whether settled possession without title enables the appellant to obtain decree of perpetual injunction. The settled possession is also one of the basis for grant of perpetual injunction. However, in the instant case, the appellant failed to prove his settled possession in the undivided property purchased under Ex'B-1 by Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No'l ' 7 RY,J lA - l _2025 _inl and sA 253 202s 12. Substantial question of law No.4 is about whether a person who is in lawful possession can seek perpetual injunction against r .ue owner. This question is not relevant in the present case as perpetual irr tnction is sought against the co-owner and not true owner.

13. The last and 5'h substantial question of law is rr rether undivided share of a coparcener with established possession can be : lid ro be legal or illegat. On this issue, it is to be noted that purchase o1'rr rdivided share of coparcenary property is not illegal. However, injunction r annot be granted against a co-owncr.

14. In view of the scrutiny of the substantial questions of law raised by appellant, it is secn that there is no substantial question of law which needs consideration by this court under Section 100 of the C.1) c. in the face of concurrent findings about the facts of the case as well as t re findings given about the appellant seeking a wrong rernedy of perpetual injunction, when he ought to have sought for partition and allotment c,t his land in the property purchased jointly under Ex.B- I .

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is , f'the considered lopinion that there are no substantial questions of larv ,r,hich are to be t' considered and the Second Appeal lacks merits. \- 8 T RY.J lA 1_2025 in/and sA 253 2025 1,6. I.A.No.t of 2025 is filed seeking to condone delay of days in .234 filing the present Second Appeal on the ground of ill-health of the appellant and his wife, who suffered with Thyroid and Hypertension. Further reason for detay stated is that there is no interference by the respondents till l't week of June, 2025 and from l't week of June, 2025, the respondents stafted to interfere and in order to protect the suit schedule property, the appellant filed the present Second Appeal.

17. The respondents opposed the I.A. to condone delay denying the averments of the application in total including the ill-health of the appellant and his wife and also the other ground i.e., the interference from the respondents.

18. The ill-health of the appellant, if any, does not seem to be so disabling such as to preverrt the appellant from preferring the Second Appeat. The illness of the appellant's wife i.e., Thyroid and Hypertension are colnmon which do not prevent any person from doing day to day activitics. It is apparent that the appellant did not intend to prefer the Second Appeat until there was alleged interference by the respondents' Waiting for the respondents to interfere without preferring the Second Appeal in time only shows negligence and lack of due diligence, as such I/ 9 !r- \ 'l *c!I RY,J IA_,l_2025_inland sA 253 2025 there are no grounds to condone the delay of234 days in filing the present Second Appeal and the application is liable to be dismiss: l.

19. In the result, thc [.A.No. I of 2025 filed seeking to :ondone delay of 234 days is dismissed and the Second Appeal is also disn issed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment and decree dat:d 06.06.2024 in A.S.No.50 of 2023 on the file of the first appellate Court. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to pursue other remedies ai ailable to him in accordance with law. There sha be no order as to cori;. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. iD/- MOHD. ISMAIL CI PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i 3ECTION OFFICER To,

2. 4 5. DLPS The Principal District Judge, at Mahabubnagar. The Principal Junior Civil Judge Jadcherla. One CC to Sri. Ganta Ramakrishna, Advocate [OPU( ] One CC to Sri M. Govind Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies L a 10 HIGH COURT DATED:25109/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT l.A. No. I of 2025 IN/AND SA.No.253 of 2025 1 e, s =-\' O) v. C)\ i' ( l.A. Nos. 1 ot 2025 and S.A. No. 53 of 2025 ARE DISMISSED a k +'

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M. Govind Reddy The Court made the following: a 'I THE HONOURABLB SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA VARA I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and SECOND APPEAL No.253 of 2025 COIV1MON JUDGMENT: Heard Sri G. Ramakrishna, leamed counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Govind Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6, on admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is prel'erred challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2024 in A.S.No.50 of 2023 on the frle of the Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar ('first appellate Court'), confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2023 in O.S.No.62 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jedcherla ('trial Court'), wherein the suit files seeking perpetual iniunction by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants has been dismissed. I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the present appeal is preferred to condone delay of 234 days in filing of the Second Appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is claiming to be absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.Nos.l80lEE2 and 180/EiE total admeasuring Ac.l - 14 guntas situated at Tatikonda Village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (hereinaftcr referred to as 'suit schedule .- \ RY,J IA I 2025_in/and sA 253 2025 '=qr 1 I '., property'). The appellant purchased the suit schedt I : property under registered sale deed document bearing No.284ll20 ll lated 18.04.2012 from original owners. Thereafter, the suit schedule prc I eny was mutated in the name of the appellant and he was issued pattedar rassbook and title deed. Ever since, he is in peaceful possession by cultiva ing the said land It is the case of the appellant that one T. Dasaratha Rl rultr was original owner and pattedar ol land in Sy.No. I 80 with an e ) tent of Ac. 12-21 guntas. Out of said [and, Ac.4-00 guntas was sold n l'avour ol one Bhuthanna. The said Bhuthanna had two sons and orr, daughter and he registered the said land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas ir: l'avour o1- his two sons and son-in-law (respondent No.l ) through re1-l stered sale deed document bearing No.1305/1981 dated 22.04.19t and dclivered possession. Subsequently, there was settlement bctwee r the sons and son- in-law (respondent No.l ) of Bhuthanna, wherein Bhut r Lnna gave land in Sy.No. 195 to his daughter and son-in-law (respondent ]J r.I ) and the entire a land in Sy.No.l [i0 was given to his two sons i.e., Ponernc ri Venkataiah and Ponemoni Anjaneyulu i.e., Ac.2-00 guntas each. Accorc Lngly, their names were mutated in the revenue records. The said Ponerr,r ri Venkataiah and Ponemoni Anjaneyulu sold land to an extent of Ac.0-3 , luntas each to the appellant for valid sale consideration under registered rrle deed. At this 2 RY,J IA-l _2025 inland sA 253 2025 juncture, the respondents, who are no way concerned with the land in Sy.No.l8O, have interfered with peaceful possession of the appellant leading to filing of the suit.

4. Respondent No.1 opposed the suit claim stating that the suit schedule property was purchased by Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.1 jointly under registered sale deed document bearing No.1305/1981 and the Ac.4-00 guntas of land is in their joint possession. Respondent No.-t has l/3'd share in Ac.4-00 guntas of land in Sy.No.180. The said land was not partitioned by metes and bounds between the owners i.e., Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.1. The identity of land to the extent of Ac. 1- 14 guntas out of Ac.4-00 guntas is not identifiable and in case the suit is decreed there is every possibility of dispossession of respondent No.1 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the sult.

5. The appellant got himself examined as P.W. I and got examined Ponemoni Anjaneyulu as P.W.2. Exs.A-l to A-18 were got marked to prove the ownership and possession. Respondents got examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. t il, 3 --\. -*1 RY,J l\ 1 2025-inland sA 253 2025

6. Upon examining the evidence adduced on record the trial Coutt came to the conclusion that under Ex'B- 1 land in Sy'No' I i t to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas was purchased jointly by Ponemoni VenkrLl riah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.l and as against this evitLt nce there is no evidence about alleged settlement of land in Sy'No' 1') i in favour of respondent No.1 and his wife for the purpose of allotting I .nd to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas in Sy.No.l80 to Ponemoni VenkataiaI and Ponemoni Anjaneyulu by Bhuthana. There is no such document file < Court. In the absence of proof of settlement between the before the trial 'amily members i.e., sons and son-in-law (respondent No.l) of Bhuthanna the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit schedule propertv i i joint property purchased jointly by Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni \njaneyulu and respondent No.l. Further, there is no proof of partiti ,n of said land between the joint purchasers- Therefore, it is held that the land ol the appellant cannot be identified until partition takes pla: r by metes and bounds and therefore, the appellant ought to have filed a I uit for partition. Further, it is held that when identification of land Jrr rchased by the appellant is not done, no injunction can be granted again; \ Ithe basis of the afbrementioned findings, the trial Courl dis co-owners. On nissed the suit. \s. --< 4 RY,J IA_l 2025 _in/and, sA 253 2025 7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, appeal is preferred before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.5O of 2023. The first appellate Court upon hearing the both sides and perusing the evidence adduced before the trial court came to the same conclusion i.e., the suit schedule property is joint property of said Ponemoni Venkataiah, ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.l and the said land was not partitioned by metes and bounds. Therefore, the first appellate Courr also held that the appellant ought to have filed suit for partition and that the injunction cannot be granted against co-owners. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred raising the following substantia[ questions of law: l. [s it a condition precedent for the plaintiff to establish title in a suit for perpetual injunction?

2. Whether revenue records, which are not under challenge, can be said to conclusive proof of orvnership and possession and also have got any presumptive and evidentiary value?

3. Whether'sefiled possession without establishing title enables the plaintiffto obtain a decree for pelpetual injunction? I

4. Whether a person who is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property can seek for perpetual injunction even against true owner?

5. Whether the purchaser ofundivided share ofa coparcener with established possession can be said to be legal or illegal? 5 I I I i RY.J IA_1_2025 tnland sA 253 2025

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Il :mavathi v. V. Hombegowda' held that High Court can enteftain a rept lar second appeal purely on a 'substantial' question of law not even a qll stion of Law or a question of fact. Further, as per the judgment of this (lor rt in Syed Abdul Quddus v. K. Vijaya Laxmi2, the Apex Court in Gurrl rv Kaur v. Kakir held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal ca urot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power rnder Section 100 CPC is very limited and it can be exercised only vr Lere a substantial question of law is raised and fell for consideration.

9. When the substantial questions of law raised in t re present Second Appeal are perused, it is seen that the substantial ques i rn of law No. I is whether it is condition precedent for the plaintiff to estl >lish title in a suit for perpetual injunction. In the instant case, there is no i sue about the title of the appellant. The only issue is shares ofjoint ou'rt rs out of the total extent of Ac.4-00 guntas in Sy.No.l80 are not carved -herefore, the suit schedule property sold by two co-owners to an extent rf Ac.0-37 guntas each is not identifiable. There has to be partition of Ac,z -00 guntas of land between Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu rnd legal heirs of \ ' (zozs) s scc a+z '? 2024 SCC OnLine TS 186 t lzoou l t scc s+e 6 \ i ,-| RY,J IA_l_2025_ir/and sA 253 2025 respondent No.l (respondent Nos.2 to 6). Once the share ofPonemoni venkataiah and Ponemoni Anjaneyulu is identified then out of the said extent of land, Ac.0-37 guntas each has to be given to the appellant' When this kind of division by metes and bounds is not done, the appellant cannot say he is in possession of the unidentified suit schedule property to an extent of Ac. 1- 14 guntas. To sum up, title is not in dispute rather possession is in dispute.

10. Substantial question of law No.2 is about whether the revenue records when unchallenged can be conclusive proof of ownership and possession and whether the said documents have presumptive and evidentiary value. There is no doubt or dispute about entries in revenue records and their evidentiary value in the present matter' I l. Substantial question of law No.3 is whether settled possession without title enables the appellant to obtain decree of perpetual injunction. The settled possession is also one of the basis for grant of perpetual injunction. However, in the instant case, the appellant failed to prove his settled possession in the undivided property purchased under Ex'B-1 by Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No'l ' 7 RY,J lA - l _2025 _inl and sA 253 202s 12. Substantial question of law No.4 is about whether a person who is in lawful possession can seek perpetual injunction against r .ue owner. This question is not relevant in the present case as perpetual irr tnction is sought against the co-owner and not true owner.

13. The last and 5'h substantial question of law is rr rether undivided share of a coparcener with established possession can be : lid ro be legal or illegat. On this issue, it is to be noted that purchase o1'rr rdivided share of coparcenary property is not illegal. However, injunction r annot be granted against a co-owncr.

14. In view of the scrutiny of the substantial questions of law raised by appellant, it is secn that there is no substantial question of law which needs consideration by this court under Section 100 of the C.1) c. in the face of concurrent findings about the facts of the case as well as t re findings given about the appellant seeking a wrong rernedy of perpetual injunction, when he ought to have sought for partition and allotment c,t his land in the property purchased jointly under Ex.B- I .

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is , f'the considered lopinion that there are no substantial questions of larv ,r,hich are to be t' considered and the Second Appeal lacks merits. \- 8 T RY.J lA 1_2025 in/and sA 253 2025 1,6. I.A.No.t of 2025 is filed seeking to condone delay of days in .234 filing the present Second Appeal on the ground of ill-health of the appellant and his wife, who suffered with Thyroid and Hypertension. Further reason for detay stated is that there is no interference by the respondents till l't week of June, 2025 and from l't week of June, 2025, the respondents stafted to interfere and in order to protect the suit schedule property, the appellant filed the present Second Appeal.

17. The respondents opposed the I.A. to condone delay denying the averments of the application in total including the ill-health of the appellant and his wife and also the other ground i.e., the interference from the respondents.

18. The ill-health of the appellant, if any, does not seem to be so disabling such as to preverrt the appellant from preferring the Second Appeat. The illness of the appellant's wife i.e., Thyroid and Hypertension are colnmon which do not prevent any person from doing day to day activitics. It is apparent that the appellant did not intend to prefer the Second Appeat until there was alleged interference by the respondents' Waiting for the respondents to interfere without preferring the Second Appeal in time only shows negligence and lack of due diligence, as such I/ 9 !r- \ 'l *c!I RY,J IA_,l_2025_inland sA 253 2025 there are no grounds to condone the delay of234 days in filing the present Second Appeal and the application is liable to be dismiss: l.

19. In the result, thc [.A.No. I of 2025 filed seeking to :ondone delay of 234 days is dismissed and the Second Appeal is also disn issed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment and decree dat:d 06.06.2024 in A.S.No.50 of 2023 on the file of the first appellate Court. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to pursue other remedies ai ailable to him in accordance with law. There sha be no order as to cori;. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. iD/- MOHD. ISMAIL CI PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i 3ECTION OFFICER To,

2. 4 5. DLPS The Principal District Judge, at Mahabubnagar. The Principal Junior Civil Judge Jadcherla. One CC to Sri. Ganta Ramakrishna, Advocate [OPU( ] One CC to Sri M. Govind Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies L a 10 HIGH COURT DATED:25109/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT l.A. No. I of 2025 IN/AND SA.No.253 of 2025 1 e, s =-\' O) v. C)\ i' ( l.A. Nos. 1 ot 2025 and S.A. No. 53 of 2025 ARE DISMISSED a k +'