M.L. Arockiyadass v. Lilly Theresa & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17-12-2009CoramTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRANA.S. Nos. 559, 573 and 583 of 1999A.S. No. 559 of 1999M.L. Arockiyadass.. Appellant/PlaintiffVersus1. Lilly Theresa (died)2. M.L. Anthoni (died)3. J. Augustine Rajan4. J. Singh Rayan5. J. Clara Josephine Henry6. J. Francis Xavier7. Mrs. Barbara..Respondents 1 to 7/Defendants8. Mrs. Josephine Allen9. Mrs. Lourdes D'souza(RR8 and 9 brought on record as LRsof deceased first respondent as per order dated 12.01.2007 made in CMP Nos. 8623 of 2006 and 6915 of 2006)10. Lourdu Mary @ Vasantha11. Jhansi Silveniya12. Amalraj13. Metilda Kalavathy14. Ramani(RR10 to 14 were brought on recordas LRs of the deceased second respondent as per order dated 12.01.2007 made inCMP Nos. 8623 of 2006 and 6915 of 2006) .. Respondents 8 to 14A.S. No. 573 of 19991. Lilly Theresa (died) .. Appellant/1st Defendant2. Mrs. Josephine Allen3. Mrs. Loordes D'souza(Appellants 2 and 3 were brought on record as legal heirsof deceased 1st appellant as perOrder dated 26.06.2008 made inCMP No. 8855 of 2006).. Appellants 2 & 3Versus1. M.L. Arockiyadass.. 1st Respondent/Plaintiff2. M.L. Anthoni (died) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. J. Augustine Rajan4. J. Singh Rayan5. J. Clara Josephine Henry6. J. Francis Xavier7. Mrs. Barbara Respondent 2 to 7/Defendants 2 to 78. Loordhu Mary @ Vasantha9. Jhansi Silveniya10. Amalraj11. Metilda Kalavathy12. Ramani(RR8 to 12 were brought on recordas LRs of the deceased second respondent as per order dated 26.06.2008 made inCMP Nos. 14565 to 14567 of 2005).. Respondents 8 to 12A.S. No. 583 of 19991. J. Augustine Rajan2. J. Singh Rayan3. J. Clara Josephine Henry4. J. Francis Xavier5. Barbara .. Appellants/Defendants 3 to 7Versus1. M.L. Arokiyadhas .. 1st Respondent/Plaintiff2. Mrs.Lilly Theresa (died)3. M.L. Anthony (died) .. Respondent 2 & 3/Defendants 1 & 24. Loorthumery @ Vasantha5. Jhansi Silveniya6. Amalraj7. Metilda Kalavathy8. Ramani.. Respondents 4 to 8(RR4 to 8 were brought on record aslegal heirs of the deceased thirdrespondent vide Order dated 23.6.2009made in CMP Nos. 14836 to 14838/05)9. Josephine Allen10. Lourdes D'Souza(RR9 and 10 were brought on record asLRs of the deceased 2nd respondent as perorder dated 07.10.2009 made in CMP No.8622 of 2006).. Respondents 9 & 10. Appeals filed under Section 96 and Order XLI-A Rule (1) of theCode of Civil Procedure against the decree and judgment dated27.02.1998 made in O.S. No. 2301 of 1996 on the file of the SecondAdditional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.A.S. No. 559 of 1999For Appellant:Mr.V.Selvaraj, Senior Counsel for M/s. Devadoson & SagarFor Respondents :Mr. Reena Johnson for RR3 to7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mrs. C. Jeyalakshmi for RR8 and 9Mr.A.N.Narasimhan for R10,11,13,14.A.S. No. 573 of 1999For Appellants : Mr.V.Selvaraj, Senior Counsel for Mrs. C.JeyalakshmiFor Respondents : M/s. Devadoson & Sagar for R1 Mrs. Reena Johnson for RR3 to 7 Mr. A.S. Narasimhan for RR8 & 9,11 & 12 R10 set exparteA.S. No. 583 of 1999For Appellants:Mr. V. Selvaraj, Senior Counsel for for Mrs. Reena JohnsonFor Respondents :M/s. Devadoson & Sagar for R1 Mr. A.S. Narasimhan for RR4, 5, 7 & 8 R6 was set exparteCOMMON JUDGMENTAll these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated27.02.1998 made in O.S. No. 2301 of 1996 on the file of the SecondAdditional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2.The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 2301 of 1996 is the appellant inA.S. No. 559 of 1999. The first defendant in that suit is theappellant in A.S. No. 573 of 1999. Since the first defendant died,pending appeal, her legal heirs were brought on record as appellants2 and 3. Defendants 3 to 7 in the said suit are the appellants inA.S. No. 583 of 1999. The second defendant is the contestingrespondent in all the appeals. Pending appeal, the second defendantdied and his legal representatives were brought on record asrespondents 10 to 14 in A.S. No. 559 of 1999; respondents 8 to 12 inA.S. No. 573 of 1999 and Respondents 4 to 8 in A.S. No. 583 of 1999. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referredto as plaintiff and defendants, as they were arrayed before the courtbelow.4. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition on theground that the property was originally purchased by Susai MaryAmmal, mother of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 and grandmother of defendants 3 to 7, way back in the year 1923. The saidSusai Mary Ammal had four children namely Elizabeth, Anthoni,Arokiyadass and Lilly Theresa. The Plaintiff is the second son ofSusai Mary Ammal, the first defendant is the daughter and the seconddefendant is the other son of Susai Mary Ammal. The defendants 3 to7 are daughters of Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Susai MaryAmmal, and grand children of Susai Mary Ammal. 5. According to the plaintiff, his mother Susai Mary Ammaldied on 18.12.1940 intestate and after her death, her children, bothsons and daughters, have been enjoying the property and they were in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ joint possession of the property. One of the daughters of Susai MaryAmmal,namely Elizabeth died in the year 1968 and their children arethe defendants 3 to 7. The said Elizabeth, as head of the family,was managing the property for herself and on behalf of the otherheirs of Late. Susai Mary Ammal, collecting rent from the tenantstill her death in the year 1968. The Plaintiff contends that aslegal heir of Susai Mary Ammal, he is entitled to 1/4 share in theproperty left by his mother. As all the legal heirs are living away,the second defendant had taken advantage of the same and was inpossession of the property after the death of Elizabeth, collectedrent from the tenants, appropriated the same for himself withoutaccounting it to other co-sharers of the property.6. According to the plaintiff, inspite of several attemptsmade by him for an amicable division of property, the seconddefendant, with an ulterior motive has not responded or come forwardfor an amicable partition. The second defendant has also constructeda house in the property and enjoying the same. The income derivedout of the same is being enjoyed by the second defendant alone.Therefore, it is no longer possible to enjoy the property jointly,hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition.7. The Plaintiff would further contend that earlier,Elizabeth, mother of the defendants 3 to 7 filed O.S. No. 601 of 1967for partition and claimed 1/4th share. Even though the suit wasfiled for partition, after her death, the suit could not be contestedor continued and it was dismissed for default. According to theplaintiff, even after dismissal of the suit, no partition has takenplace among the legal heirs and the property continued to be in jointpossession of the plaintiff and other legal heirs of Susai Mary Ammal.8. The first defendant filed written statement admitting thegenealogy. The first defendant would specifically contend that afterthe death of Elizabeth, the second defendant was in possession of theproperty and collecting rents from the tenants without accounting itto the other legal heirs of Susai Mary Ammal, enjoying the income andappropriating it for his own benefits. It was contended by the firstdefendant that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suitproperty and equally, she is also entitled for 1/4th share and soughtfor partition of her share.9. The second defendant filed written statement and contestedthe suit. The second defendant admitted the genealogy. According tothe second defendant, the deceased Susai Mary Ammal was living alonewith him and he only had taken care of her till her death on18.12.1940. After her death, he alone was in possession andenjoyment of the suit property. There was no joint possession of theproperty by any other defendants. He claimed exclusive possession ofthe property. He contended that Elizabeth, one of the daughters ofSusai Mary Ammal, never managed the property and she was never inpossession or enjoying the property. He has been in continuous, openand uninterrupted possession for a period of more than 50 years,hence, the suit is barred by limitation.10. It was specifically pleaded by the second defendant thateven as per the admission of the plaintiff and other defendants, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been collecting rents, appropriating the same without accountingit to other sharers as he has no legal obligation to pay the rent toany one. Furthermore, there is no need or necessity to divide theproperty and he is the sole owner of the property. The governmenttax and public charges in respect of the property are being paid byhim and even the superstructure was built by him out of his ownfunds. As he was in continuous possession from 1940, nobody has anyright, interest or title over the suit property.11. The third defendant filed his written statement admittingthe genealogy. The third defendant also contended that the plaintiffis entitled to 1/4th share and each of the defendants 3 to 7 areentitled to 1/20th share in the property. As far as the seconddefendant is concerned, he is in possession of the property andcollecting the rent from the tenants without accounting it for otherlegal heirs and appropriating it for his own benefits. 12. The seventh defendant has filed written statementreiterating that the second defendant is in possession and enjoymentof the property, collecting rent from the tenants, appropriating itfor his own benefit and not accounting it for the other legal heirs.He also claimed 1/20th share in the suit property.13. The Plaintiff has filed a reply statement. In the reply,for the first time, the plaintiff contended that Elizabeth and thesecond defendant were collecting rent from the tenants for and onbehalf of the other co-owners and legal heirs of Susai Mary Ammal asthey were away in Madras. He further contended that the seconddefendant was in possession of the property with the permission ofthe plaintiff and other co-owners. In the reply, it was furtherstated that due to the wilful omission of the second defendant to payany amount and also due to misappropriation of the money for his ownbenefit without the knowledge and consent of the other co-owners, theplaintiff was constrained to file the suit.14. Based on the above pleadings, the parties went for trial,let in oral and documentary evidence. On behalf of the Plaintiff,the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and one Mr. Locas as PW2 andmarked Exs. A1 to A20. On behalf of the defendants, the first andsecond defendant examined themselves as DW1 and DW2 respectively andmarked Exs. B1 to B81. The court below, taking into consideration ofthe pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on both sides, dismissedthe suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and theplaintiff is not entitled to any share in the property. Aggrieved bythe same, the present appeal suits have been filed.15. Heard the counsel for both sides. The ony contention raisedin these appeals by all the parties concerned is whether the suit forpartition is maintainable and whether it is not barred by limitation.Therefore, the point for consideration in these appeals is whetherthe suit is maintainable and not barred by limitation.16. The learned counsel for the appellants jointly argued thatthe earlier suit in O.S. No. 601 of 1967 was filed by the mother ofthe defendants 3 to 7 namely Elizabeth would clearly prove the claimof the plaintiff. Their main contention was in the earlier suit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed for partition, Arokiyadass, (plaintiff in the present suit) andAntony (second defendant in the presentsuit) have filed joint writtenstatement and stated in para-6 that "These defendants submit thatthey along with the plaintiff and the third defendant were in theposition of co-owners with regard to all the properties existing atthe death of their mother." Further, in Para-8 of the said writtenstatement, it was stated that "....they along with the thirddefendant are in law and justice entitled to the whole of theproperties in the schedule of the plaint and that the plaintiff whohas already taken more than the value of the share cannot claim ashare in them or claim a partition thereof." Therefore, when thedefendants themselves in the earlier suit have categorically admittedthat the property was owned by them and enjoyed by them as co-owners,the court below ought not to have dismissed the present suit.Further, the said suit in O.S. No. 601 of 1967 having been dismissedon the death of Elizabeth and the properties having not beenpartitioned, even after the death of Elizabeth, they continued to bein possession and enjoyment of the property as co-owners and as co-owners, they are entitled to seek for partition. Therefore, in thepresent suit, the contesting second defendant cannot have any defenceat all inasmuch as there was an admission in the earlier writtenstatement in a previous suit between the same parties, accepting theright of the predecessors of the defendants 3 to 7. Therefore, thisadmission in the earlier written statement is vital from which it canbe concluded that the suit for partition has got to be decreed.Further, there cannot be any question of limitation inasmuch as theproperties are owned by all co-owners and enjoyed by all of them.Even though there cannot be a co-parcenary right, since theproperties are owned jointly, the parties can only be called as co-owners. Then, the position cannot be construed as against them eventhough it was admitted that possession of the property was with thesecond defendant. Furthermore, change of records in themunicipality, payment of tax, enjoyment of property by collectingrent by itself would not tantamount to ouster or adverse possession.The dismissal of the earlier suit in O.S. No.601 of 1967 for defaultwould not render the present suit as time barred inasmuch as theearlier suit was dismissed for abatement on the death of theplaintiff Elizabeth. Therefore, the plaintiff in the suit as well asthe defendants 1, 3 to 7 would only contend that the property isliable for partition and they are entitled for a share, which was notproperly appreciated by the court below.17. Contra, the learned counsel for the contesting seconddefendant would specifically bring to the notice of this Court thepleadings of the parties in the earlier suit as well as the presentsuit and contend that in O.S. No. 601 of 1967, Elizabeth, mother ofthe defendants 3 to 7, in Para No.9, had categorically admitted that"Recently the first respondent-defendant has been unlawfully andwithout any legal sanction and unwarrantedly has beencollecting therent accruing from the said property, the superstructures over thesaid property having been repaired and renewed by the petitioner-plaintiff whenever required, as the petitioner-plaintiff is theeldest of the children of the said Susai Mary Ammal." 18. Originally, the suit was filed as a pauper on 19.03.1965and subsequently the prayer for filing the suit as a pauper suit was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allowed and the suit was numbered as O.S. No. 601 of 1967. As per thepleadings, the plaintiff in the suit has categorically stated thatright from 1965, the first defendant therein (second defendant in thepresent suit), without any legal right have been collecting the rentagainst the interest of the other co-sharer, appropriating the rentalamount for his own benefits and not accounting it for the othersharers. This pleading would denote that from the date of filing ofthe said suit namely 19.03.1965, the first defendant therein namelyAnthony has been collecting the rent and doing acts which aredetrimental to the interest of the other co-sharers. The wordingsused in the said suit in O.S.No. 601 of 1967 is to the effect thatthe first defendant Anthony is "unlawfully and without any legalsanction and unwarrantedly has been collecting the rent accruing fromthe said property" which would indicate that the second defendant inthe present suit is acting against the interest of the other co-sharers, without their permission and will. Furthermore, the seconddefendant in the present suit is enjoying the property with fullanimus as absolute owner of the property. He was also not accountingfor the rent collected from the tenants and appropriating it for hisown benefits. This factual admission in the earlier suit denotesthat from 1965, the parties were on logger heads. They knew verywell they are not enjoying the property jointly. Once the earliersuit in O.S. No. 601 of 1967 was dismissed for default, even in theyear 1969, atleast within 12 years either from 1965, the date ofinstitution of O.S. No. 601 of 1967, or from 1969, the date ofdismissal of the suit, either of the co-owners ought to have filed asuit seeking for partition but the same was not done.19. In the present suit, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1.In Para No.4 of the plaint, it was stated that Susai Mary Ammal wascollecting the rent from the tenants till her death in 1968 whereasshe died in the year 1940 as per the pleadings of the parties and itwas Elizabeth, who died in the year 1968. The learned counsel forthe plaintiff fairly admitted that such an error has crept in theplaint and it was due to typeographical error.20. In Para No.5 of the plaint, it was stated that "Since alllegal heirs were living away, the second defendant took advantage ofthe situation and took possession of the plaint schedule propertyafter the death of Mrs. Elizabeth and has been collecting rents fromthe tenants and appropriating the same for himself without accountingto the co-sharers of the property." Similarly, in Para No.6, it wasstated that "...The second defendant, with an ulterior motive has notresponded to the requests of the legal heirs, and he has not chosento give an account of the rents collected by him from 1968 onwards.The second defendant has also constructed the building out of theincome derived from the plaint schedule property. The Plaintiffsubmits that the parties herein find it inconvenient to enjoy theproperty incommon and continuation of the joint possession of theproperty is no longer advantageous and beneficial to the partiesherein besides it causes hardship." 21. The first defendant has filed a written statement whereinin Para No.2, it was contended that "After the death, the seconddefendant was in possession of the property and collecting the rentfrom the tenants without accounting it to the legal heris of Mrs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Susai Mariammal without accounting the income derived the seconddefendant appropriated it for his own benefits." Similarly, thedefendants 3 to 6 have jointly filed a written statement wherein inPara No.3, it was stated that "....the second defendant was inpossession of the property, and collecting rents from the tenantswithout accounting it to the legal heirs of Mrs. Susai mariammal.Without accounting the income derivedfrom the property, the seconddefendant appropriated them for his own benefit." Similarly, theseventh defendant has filed a written statement wherein also, it wasstated in para-3 that ".....the second defendant was in possession ofthe property, and collecting rents from the tenants withoutaccounting it to the legal heirs of Mrs. Susai mariammal. Withoutaccounting the income derived from the property, the second defendantappropriated them for his own benefit." 22. From the reading of admitted statement made by the parties,who are the appellants in all the above three appeals, it is clearthat they all admit that the second defendant in the suit was inpossession and enjoyment of the property atleast from 1965 and hefailed to account for the rents, failed to pay the amout to the otherlegal heirs and he has been enjoying the proceeds for his own benefitwithout any consent or sanction of the others. Such an act of thesecond defendant is adverse to the interest of the others. When oncethe earlier suit in O.S. No. 601 of 1967 was dismissed, at least theother legal heirs ought to have taken steps within 12 year from thatdate to seek for partition and asserted their right, whereas theyhave not done so. They have not taken any steps to object thepossesion of the second defendant and also for effecting transfer ofhis name in the revenue records, payment of tax and other statutorydues made by him. This clearly prove that the adverse possession ofthe second defendant was never questioned by the other legal heirs ofSusai Mary Ammal. Such an inaction on the part of the plaintiff andother co-sharers all these years from 1965 or 1968, till 1996, isclearly an act by which they have failed to question the adversepossession of the second defendant and therefore they are notentitled to the relief of partition.23. It was contended by the second defendant that the propertywas purchased by Susai Mary Ammal way back in the year 1923 and shedied in the year 1940 and thereafter, he was in possession andenjoyment of the property. Such a stand was also taken by the seconddefendant by filing written statement in the earlier suit in O.S. No.601 of 1967. After the date of death of Susai Mary Ammal, in 1940,the second defendant continued his possession and from that date tillthe date of filing the present suit being O.S. No. 2301 of 1996, thesecond defendant was in possession for over 56 years and if the dateof filing of O.S. No. 601 of 1967 (suit filed in the year 1965) isconsidered, the second defendant was in possession of more than 31years. If the date of dismissal of O.S. No. 601 of 1967, in the year1968 is considered, the second defendant was in possession of thesuit property for more than 28 years. Therefore, it can be concludedthat the possession of the second defendant over the property isadverse to the interest of the other legal heirs of Susai Mary Ammal.Under those circumstances, the present suit for partition is clearlybarred. The Plaintiff and other defendants 1, 3 to 7 have notestablished their right over the property as co-sharers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

24. The parties to the suit are Christian and they cannot pleadco-parcenary rights as in the case of Hindus. The right of co-owneris different from Coparcenary rights. The right of co-owner can beasserted based on the possession of the property by the other co-owner for and on behalf of all theco-owners as long as he continuedto be in possession with the consent and knowledge of the other co-owners. Whereas, even as per the admission in the pleadings in theearlier suit in O.S. No. 601 of 1967, one co-owner categoricallystates that the second defendant herein is enjoying the propertyagainst their interest, illegally, without sanction. This wouldcategorically indicate the possession of the second defendant rightfrom the beginning, which is adverse to the interest of the others.Therefore, the other co-owners cannot contend that they are jointowners or co-owners or in joint possession of the property with thesecond defendant. Once there is no joint possession, the question oflimitation would definitely come in. In any event, as discussedearlier, the suit is clearly barred by limitation. Any amount ofevidence, at this stage to say that the parties were in jointpossession cannot be accepted. Therefore, I hold that the courtbelow has rightly concluded that the suit is not maintainable and itis barred by limitation.25. PW1 in his evidence has admitted that "fy;ahz nk!;jphpbjUtpy; ,Uf;Fk; tPl;il 1963?y; mokid brhe;jf;fhuhplkpUe;J fpuakhf bgw;W jdp jdpahffl;olk; fl;o jdpahf FoapUe;J tUfpnwhk;/ 1962?apypUe;J FoapUe;njhk; vd;gJ rhpay;y/1972?apypUe;J jdpahf FoapUe;njd;//////// v';fSf;F brhe;jkhd fy;ahz nk!;jphp njhl;lk; vd;w,lj;jpy; vdf;F cz;lhd ghfj;ij gphpj;J bfhLf;FkhW nfl;nld;/ 1972?y; v';fSf;F fy;ahznk!;jphp fhh;ld; ,lj;ijg; gphpj;J mokidia Fwpj;J kl;Lk; ghfgphptpid Vw;gl;L gj;jpuKk;vGjpf; bfhz;nlhk;/ 1972?f;F gpwF jhd; nf/vk;/ fhh;ldpy; vdf;F xJf;fg;gl;l ,lj;Jf;Fte;njd;/ 26. DW1 in his Chief-examination has admitted that "jhthbrhj;Jf;fhf ghfg; gphptpid vJt[k; elf;ftpy;iy/ mf;fh ,we;j gpwF me;njhdp guhkhpj;Jte;jhh;/ tut[ fzf;F vdf;F vg;nghJk; brhd;djpy;iy/ bghpaz;zh guhkhpf;f Muk;gpj;jfhyj;jpypUe;J v';fSf;Fs; ghfgphptpid vJt[k; Vw;gltpy;iy///// fl;llj;ij hpg;ngh; bra;tjw;nfhehd; ve;j cjtpa[k; bra;atpy;iy vd;gJ rhpjhd;/ 27. DW2 in his evidence has stated that "1971?y; nf/vk;/ fhh;ld; tPl;ilgphpj;njhk;////// 1971?y; ghfk; gphpj;j gpwF eh';fs; xd;whf ,Uf;ftpy;iy/ jhth brhj;Jf;fiskjpg;gPL vd; bgahpy; 1962?y; ,Ue;J bjhlh;e;J vd; kPJ cs;sJ///// 28. As per the evidence available on record, it is clear thatin the year 1971, in respect of other properties, the parties havedivided it among themselves and enjoying them separately. Eventaking into consideration that from 1971 the parties have not been injoint possession of the suit property and also not partitioned theproperty among themselves, atleast from 1971, within 12 years, thesuit ought to have been filed, but the same was not done in thepresent case. The fact that the parties are all residing separatelyfrom 1971 would make it clear that the claim of joint possession is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nullified. Merely because in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 601 of1967 the second defendant, along with the first defendant has statedthat they are enjoying the property jointly, it cannot be consideredto hold that there was a joint possession among the parties. Whenthere is a clear admission on the part of the parties that the seconddefendant is in possession of the property, which is detrimental totheir interest, the question of joint possession projected in thesuit is invalid. 29. The documentary evidence Exs. B1 to B81 indicate that rightfrom 1962, the second defendant is paying property tax, payingnecessary taxes and charges and enjoying the property absolutely ashis own. Therefore also, the finding of the court below that thepossession of the second defendant over the property is adverse tothe interest of the plaintiff and other defendants is sustainable andlegally valid. I do not find any justifiable reasons to interferewith the well considered decree and judgment of the court below.30. In the result, the appeals fail and they are dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.RegistrarrshTo1.The Second Additional Judge City Civil Court, Madras.2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras-1041 cc to M/s.Reena Johnson, Advocate, Sr.No.696261 cc to Mr.A.S.Narasimhan, Advocate, Sr.No.696921 cc to M/s.C.Jayalakshmi, Advocate, Sr.No.696251 cc to M/s.Davadason & Sagar, Advocate, Sr.No.69624A.S. Nos. 559, 573 & 583/1999SSN {CO}TP/23.2.2010.