Guruvina Sidda Mariswamy vs Kottralli Nagappa

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—1. Second defendant in O.S. No. 48/1989 (O.S. No. 111/1982) has preferred this second appeal, assailing judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 4/2007 by Fast Track Court-I at Bellary, dated 18.01.2010, by which, judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 48/1989 by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Shirguppa, has been confirmed.

At this stage itself it is relevant to mention that as against the judgment and decree of trial Court passed in O.S. No. 48/1989 dated 10.08.2000, respondent plaintiff had preferred cross objection which has been allowed in R.A. No. 4/2007.

For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the trial Court.

Respondent plaintiff filed O.S. No. 111/1982, before Civil Judge and C.J.M. Court, Bellary, later on, renumbered as O.S. No. 48/1989, before Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Siruguppa, seeking a declaration that he is hereditary and lawful Guru of Kuruba community of Sree Revana Siddeshwara Sampradaya within taluks of Siruguppa, Bellary, Adoni, Alur, Gooty and Pathikonda areas and entitled to all emoluments and kanikes, etc., from Kuruba community, who are sishyas and also sought relief of injunction restraining defendant from claiming or representing that he is the Guru of Kuruba community of Revana Siddeshwara Sampradaya in the aforesaid areas and from making any collections, receiving kanikes or interfering with plaintiffs exercise of his rights.

Defendant No. 1 is the father of defendant No. 2. He died during the pendency of suit.

According to plaintiff, Kuruba community is a large and important body of Hindus. There are famous Saints, Rulers, Commanders, Warriors, Agriculturists, who are from that community. The famous Saint ''Kanakadasa'' belongs to that community. They are known by different nomenclatures through out the country. In Bellary district they are called as ''Halu Matasthas''. Their deity is ''Beera Devaru''. They follow the sampradaya and tradition of Revana Siddeshwara. There are Gurus for each area having large number of Sishyas who owe allegiance to them. The Gurus are invited to functions such as marriages and they are presented kanikas in cash and kind and they are the sole authority in all community matters and disputes. Different areas have different Gurus. The office of Guru is a hereditary office and by succession. Plaintiff is the present Guru for said community for the area comprising Siruguppa taluk, parts of Bellary taluk, Adoni, Alur and part of Gooti taluk and Pattikonda adjoining Bellary district in Andhra Pradesh. Since his father''s death in about year 1968-69, said office has been inherited by him.

Pedda Pawadappa, was the Guru at the close of last century. He died issueless. The office of Guru devolved on his undivided brother, Sanna Pawadappa or Chinna Pawadappa. Thereafter, it devolved on his adopted son, Shivappa and he was the Guru. On the demise of Shivappa, it devolved on Pawadappa and on his demise on the plaintiff Thus, plaintiff is the present Guru of the community. That the plaintiff and his ancestors have been recognised as Gurus by the community and they have been offered all honours by their shishyas in the aforesaid areas. Plaintiff has been peacefully enjoying the office and also emoluments attached thereto without any obstruction. That defendant No. 1 Sadashivaiah is the pujari of loosely termed ''Matam'' of Kadasiddeshwara in Tekkalkote.

According to plaintiff, Sree Kadasiddeshwara had lived some centuries ago. He was a holy person seeking God''s grace and moving from place to place. The places where he lived were worshipped and in course of time and came to be called as Matam, namely, abode of a Saint. One such place is Tekkalkote in Siruguppa taluk, Bellary district. In due course of time, said place became sanctified. His articles have been kept there and they are venerated. Original Samadi of Sree Kadasiddeshwara is not at Tekkalkote, but he passed away at some place in Karnataka. That the place where Sree Kadasiddeshwara resided, at Tekkalkote, in due course of time came to be called as Kadasiddeshwara Mutt and in the said Mutt there are pujaris to perform pujas by turns. Defendant is one of the pujari of Mutt. He is not the Guru of Kuruba community and he has no right to the emoluments attached to that office. But the plaintiff and his ancestors have been the hereditary Gurus of Kuruba community within the aforesaid areas.

That defendant has no relationship with plaintiffs family or the ancestors of Pedda Pawadappa or Chinna Pawadappa. He had filed a suit against plaintiff in Adoni Munsiff Court claiming to be Guru of Kuruba community, on false averments. The Court had held that he was the Guru of said Kadasiddeshwara Mutt. The Court did not hold that he was the Guru of Kuruba community. That Kuruba community follows sampradaya or tradition of Sree Revanasiddeshwara a Mystic, who existed many centuries ago. Having found that in the suit filed by him he was not declared as Guru of Kuruba community, defendant circulated a printed circular dated 09.02.1981, falsely claiming to be the Matadipathi of Sree Revanasiddeshwara Mutt and making false allegations therein. As far as Revanasiddeshwara Gaddige and pujas are concerned, it is only plaintiff and his predecessors, who were entitled to perform said pujas. That the Circular issued by defendant has caused loss and damage to the reputation of plaintiff As the plaintiff is Guru of Kuruba community of Revanasiddeshwara Sampradaya, as a result it has affected the right of plaintiff to the emoluments, kanike, etc., attached to said Peeta as a Mattam. Defendant is not the Guru of Kuruba community of Revanasiddeshwara Sampradaya, but he is only entitled to perform puja. He is only a pujari or archaka at Kadasiddeshwara Mattam. But, on account of circular dated 09.02.1981 issued by defendant there has been mis-representation to the community about plaintiffs position as Guru of the Kuruba community. The said circular states that he is not the Guru of Tekkalkote in Siruguppa taluk Bellary district. Hence, suit was filed by respondent plaintiff seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

On receipt of suit summons and court notices from the trial court, defendant No. 1 appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement on 06.07.1983 before the Court at Bellary. He pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in law or on facts, that the allegations in plaint were false and that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit as the subject matter of suit relates to religious matters and is barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC). He further contended that he had filed before the District Court at Adoni (in Andhra Pradesh) O.S. No. 366/1976 against plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction, restraining plaintiff from collecting offerings from the members of Kuruba community within Adoni taluk by mis-representing himself as Mathadipathi of Kadasiddeshwara Mutt, Tekkalakote. The said suit was contested by plaintiff herein, but trial Court decreed the suit in favour of defendant.

It is further contended in the written statement that defendant is a Guru of Kuruba community members of which are residing in areas covered by parts of Bellary taluk, Adoni, Alur and parts of Gooty and Pathikonda taluks in Andhra Pradesh, by heredity. Due to old age, defendant had relinquished his Guruship to his son Sidda Mariswamappa (defendant No. 2) and he has been blessed as such by Sree Sree Sree Swamiji of Rambhapun Mutt, the highest Guru for both Kurubas as well as Veerashaivas. Defendant and his ancestors have all along been acting as Guru of Kuruba community in all the areas mentioned above right from the time of Bukkaraya of Vijayanagar Empire. That the tomb of great Saint by name Kadasiddeshwara is at Tekkalkote. Defendant and his ancestors have been performing puja to the tomb. There is no Mutt in the religious sense of Kadasiddeshwara. He was a great Saint whose tomb is worshipped. The place in which tomb is situated is called as Mattam, as the abode of great Saint. Defendant and his forefathers have been residing in the area called as Mattam. There is no Mutt as such in real religious sense and defendant is not a pujari of Kadasiddeshwara mutt. But he is performing puja to Kadasiddeshwara, a great Saint.

It is further averred that the claim of plaintiff is that he is the present Guru of Kuruba community in certain areas mentioned in plaint after his father''s death in or about 1968-69 is not true. Defendant is the Guru by heredity. Defendant is hereditary Guru and at no point of time plaintiff nor his ancestors were the Gurus of Kuruba community in those areas. The claim made by plaintiff about his ancestors and about himself is false. None of them acted as a Guru at any point of time. Neither plaintiff has been enjoying office of Guru nor is he entitled to any emoluments offered by the members of Kuruba community. Plaintiff has gathered support of some busy bodies and disgruntled persons and making claim for Guruship on false grounds and untenable grounds, is the averment.

Further, it is false to state that defendant is only a pujari of Kadasiddeshwara Mattam in Tekkalkote. There is no pujari as such therein. He performs pujas to the tomb of Kadasiddeshwara as he was a great Saint of Tekkalkote and he resided in the said area. There is no tomb as such, but it is only loosely called as Samadi or Gaddige as Kadasiddeshwara disappeared from Tekkalkote. That defendant is not a pujari in said Mattam. He and his ancestors are heriditary Gurus of Kuruba community in the jurisdictional areas referred to above. That the suit filed by defendant has been rightly decreed by the Court at Adoni. Revanasiddeshwara Mutt, referred to in the pamphlet is none other than Kadasiddeshwara Mutt. Defendant as Matadipathi of Kuruba community is synonymously called as Sree Revanasiddeshwara Mutt or Kadasiddeshwara Mutt. The said Mutt is a branch of Rambhapuri Peeta of Balehalli. Reiterating that neither plaintiff nor his predecessors were at any point of time the Guru of Kuruba community, defendant sought dismissal of suit as there was no cause of action to file the suit.

In response to the written statement, plaintiff filed his rejoinder on 24.08.1983, reiterating what has been stated in the plaint by contending that defendant is not the Guru of Kuruba or Halumatastha community and there is no question of relinquishing anything in favour of his son. It was contended that Court at Adoni had declared defendant as Matadipathi of Kuruba community. The contents of pamphlet are true, but interpretation of pamphlet is false. Hence, plaintiff sought for decree of suit.

The suit was thereafter transferred to the Court at Siruguppa. As already noted, during the pendency of the suit defendant-1 died. I.A.3 was filed by the Guru Sidda Manswamy for impleading him and he was impleaded as defendant No. 2. He filed written statement adopting the contents of the written statement of defendant-1. Defendant No. 2 contended that the avocation of Shishya Sancharam is not an office and it is not property. The suit is not tenable in law. There are five Jagadgurus in Veerashaiva community known as "Shrimad Jagadguru Panchacharyas" and they are known by different names. Defendant No. 2 was disciple of Shri Shri Shri Jagadguru Rambhapuri Swamiji and followers of that Sampradaya of that mutt. The Sampradayas are known by the name of Ganadheeshwara of that Peetha i.e. Jagadguru Revanasiddeshwara is the Gandheeshwar of Shri Shri Jagadguru Rambhapuri Peetha and as such, the Sampradaya of that Peetha is known as Jagadguru Revanasiddeshwar Sampradaya. The defendant''s ancestors are disciples of Rambhapuri mutt and are followers of Jagadguru Revanasiddeshwar Sampradaya. The defendants have been performing poojas to the tomb of great saint Kadasiddeshwara Swami and also performing religious functions as Guru on hereditary basis. The Asana or Gaddige or the place for the Guru to sit is known as Ganadheeshwara i.e. Jagadguru Revana Siddeshwara Gaddige at all places. Now this defendant has been performing pooja of the tomb of Kadasiddeshwara Swamy and also performing the religious functions of the disciples of the said mutt as Guru by sitting at a place known as Jagadguru Revanasiddeshwara Gaddige. The plaintiff by means of an injunction intended to restrain defendants from performing functions as a Guru by sitting in the place prepared by the disciple of Mutt known as Jagadguru Revanasiddeshwara Gaddige. The Plaintiff has no right to do so. Further as Shishya of Shri Kadasiddeshwara Swami this defendant has to perform pooja of tomb of Shri Kadasiddeshwara Swami and as such, he has right to retain both movable and immovable properties of the mutt as it is a hereditary right to him. It is the bounden duty of the 2nd defendant to perform religious functions according to the customs and practices of Kadasiddeshwara Mutt and he has right to receive Kanike and offerings made by the disciples. Hence he sought dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of the rival pleadings the trial court framed following issues and additional issues for its consideration:

Whether the suit is barred by Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code?

Whether defendant has been declared as ''GURU'' of Kuruba community in O.S. No. 366/1976 on the file of Munsiff, Adoni?

Whether the Judgment in the said suit is binding upon the plaintiff?

Whether defendant proves relinquishment alleged in para 5 of the Written Statement and whether it is valid?

What is the effect of printed circular dated 9.2.1981 upon the plaintiff and whether the contents of the said circular are true?

Additional Issue No. 1: Does plaintiff prove that he is a hereditary ''GURU'' as claimed in paras 4 and 5 of the plaint?

In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW.16 and other witnesses were examines as PWs.1 to 15. He gave rebuttal evidence as PW.1. On behalf of plaintiff, 54 documents were produced which were marked as Ex.P1 to P.54. Defendant No. 2 examined himself as DW.1 and six other witnesses were examined as D.Ws.2 to 7. On behalf of defendants, 21 documents were produced and they were marked as Ex.D.1 to D.21(b).

On the basis of said evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos. 1 to 4 in the negative and issue No. 5 and additional issue No. 1 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff against defendant-2 as the suit had already been dismissed as against deceased defendant No. 1 on account of his death. It was ordered that the plaintiff was the Guru of Kuruba community of Revana Siddeshwara Sampradaya and entitled to all emoluments and kanike etc. from the Kuruba community. Defendant No. 2 was restrained from collecting any Kanike and emoluments from Kuruba community of Revanasiddeshwara Sampradaya and he should not interfere with the plaintiffs exercise of his rights.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 10.08.2000, the 2nd defendant preferred R.A.4/2007. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the finding on issue No. 2 filed Cross Objections in the said appeal before the Fast Track Court-1 at Ballari. The appeal was heard by the said I Appellate Court and on hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties, it framed the following points for its consideration:

Whether the lower Court is justified in holding that, plaintiff is a hereditary Guru of Kuruba community and suit is maintainable and defendant has failed to prove issue No. 1 to 5 and proceeded to answer issue No. 1 to 4 in Negative and issue No. 5 and additional issue No. 1 in Affirmative and proceeded to decree the suit?

Whether the respondent/plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to show that, the finding given by the trial Court holding that, defendant No. 2 was a poojari of the Math at Tekkalakote and there are enough material to hold that, the appellant is the Mathadhipathi of the Math is the result of wrong appreciation of the facts both oral and documentary, same is to be corrected in this appeal as prayed for in the memorandum of objection filed U/o 41 R.26 of CPC?

Whether the finding given by the trial Court on all the issues are erroneous, capricious and vexatious, so passed without the proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence which warrants any interference by this appellate Court?

It answered point Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No. 3 in the negative and dismissed the appeal filed by defendant and allowed cross objections filed by plaintiff, by its judgment and decree dated 18.01.2010.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the I Appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for respondent and perused the material on record as well as original records.

On behalf of appellant, it was firstly contended that in view of Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure the suit was not maintainable as the respondent-plaintiff was seeking a declaration in respect of holding the position of Guru of Kuruba community following Revana Siddeshwra Sampradaya and as such, the trial court had no jurisdiction to give its finding on such issues. He contended that both the courts below were not right in holding that the suit was not barred under Section 9 of CPC. He next contended that O.S. No. 366/1978, was a suit filed by defendant-1, father of the present appellant was decreed and he was held to be Guru of Kuruba community following Revana Siddeshwara Sampradaya. That judgment has given a go-by by courts below and contrary finding in favour of respondent has been given. He contended that substantial questions of law would arise in this appeal, firstly, on jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit and secondly, with regard to the relief claimed by respondent herein and therefore, the appeal may be admitted for a detailed hearing.

Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent supporting the judgment and decree of the I Appellate Court contended that the appellant herein is a stranger in so far as the office of Guru of Kuruba community following Revanasiddeshwara Sampradaya is concerned. He contended that the plaintiff is the present holder of said office as Guru, and this fact, has been established in judicial proceedings. Originally, O.S.421/1899 had been filed by the great grandfather of plaintiff regarding the said office. The said suit was dismissed, but he filed Appeal Suit No. 153/1900 and the appeal was decreed. It was held that the occupants of the said office of Guru of Kuruba community was on hereditary basis. This is established by Ex.P.10 and P.11 produced by the plaintiff Despite this fact being established as early as in the year 1900, defendant-1 had filed O.S.366/1978 before the trial court at Adoni (Andhra Pradesh). Although the said suit was decreed, the plaintiff herein preferred AS.67/1980 which was allowed. Thereafter second appeal S.A.17/1987 was preferred by defendant-1 before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. That second appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 08.09.1988.

In the interregnum defendant-1 had circulated a pamphlet against the plaintiff. Therefore, O.S. No. 111/1982 which was later on renumbered as O.S. No. 48/1989 out of which this Second Appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff He contended that on account of previous judicial dictum, the I Appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiff was the hereditary Guru of Kuruba community following Revanasiddeshwara Sampradaya and that he was entitled to Kanike and emoluments, etc., from the Kuruba community and the trial court rightly decreed the suit, although it answered in the negative on issue No. 2. Therefore, when defendant No. 2 filed R.A.4/2007 plaintiff filed cross objections with regard to the finding given by the trial court on issue No. 2. The I Appellate Court rightly allowed cross objection filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal filed by defendant No. 2. The said judgment would not call for any interference.

Drawing my attention to the documents produced by the respective parties which are in the original records, he contended that the findings given by the first appellate court would not call for any interference in this appeal and no substantial question of law would arise in this appeal and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed in limine.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is noted that the trial court although answered issue No. 2 in the negative and against plaintiff in the suit it granted a decree of declaration and injunction in favour of the plaintiff On the finding on issue No. 2 plaintiff filed cross objection in R.A. No. 4/2007. The said appeal has been dismissed by the I Appellate Court while allowing cross objection. The entire controversy in this case is now in a narrow compass on account of the previous judicial dictum concerning the office of Guru by Kuruba community following Revanasiddeshwara Sampradaya. The ancestors of plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 421/1899 which suit was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the said suit R.A. No. 153/1900 was filed which was allowed and it was held that the plaintiffs family had right to hold the office as hereditary Guru of Kuruba community following Revanasiddeshwara Sampradaya. The orders passed in these proceedings are at Ex.P.10 and P.11. When the matter stood thus, O.S. No. 366/1978 was filed by defendant 1 before the Trial Court at Adoni. The said suit was decreed, against which the plaintiff herein filed R.A.67/1980, the said appeal was allowed. Against which S.A. 17/1987 was filed by defendant 1 before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh. The said appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 8.9.1988. Although the defendant-1 succeeded before the Trial Court, the judgment and decree passed in his favour in O.S. No. 366/1978 was reversed in R.A.67/1980. The said judgment of the I Appellate Court was confirmed in Second Appeal by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh. Ex.P.53 is the decree passed in S.A.17/1987, which arose from appeal suit A.S.67/1980 and original suit O.S.366/1978. Ex.P.54 is the judgment in S.A.17/1987 by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad. S.A. No. 17/1987 was filed by defendant-1 herein. The High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh while dismissing the appeal held as under:

"There is no substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent did not contest the claim of the appellant. A perusal of the deposition of the respondent shows that he did assert that he was Kulaguruvu of Kurubas. The injunction sought by the appellant restraining the respondent from collections any offerings from the members of the Kuruba community was therefore rightly negatived by the lower appellate court. The second appeal is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs."

From this what follows is that, while in R.A.153/1900 that I Appellate Court in proceedings initiated by the great grandfather of the present plaintiff had held that he was Guru of Kuruba community following Revanasiddeshwara Sampradaya. That finding was sought to be set at naught by defendant-1 father of appellant herein by filing O.S. No. 366/1978. Though he succeeded before the trial court in the said suit, in A.S.67/1980 filed by respondent/plaintiff herein the suit was dismissed and appeal was allowed which was confirmed in S.A.17/1987 by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it dismissed the appeal on 08.09.1988.

During the pendency of the appeal A.S.67/1980 defendant-1 circulated the pamphlets against the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff was not the Guru of Kuruba community following Revanasiddeshwara Sampradaya. Probably defendant-1 circulated pamphlets after the judgment and decree passed in O.S.366/78 by the trial court in which he succeeded, which may have been some time in the year 1980. It is in that context the plaintiff filed suit in the year 1982 seeking the relief of permanent injunction as against defendants. By the time the trial court passed decree in O.S.48/1989, the decree passed in O.S.366/1978 in favour of defendant-1 had been reversed in A.S.67/1980 against which, defendant-1 had preferred S.A.17/1987 before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh which had dismissed the second appeal. Therefore, the findings of courts in the two sets of litigation had attained finality and were binding on the parties herein. Nevertheless the trial court on issue No. 2 held in the negative which was "whether the defendant has been declared as Guru of Kuruba community in O.S. No. 366/1976 on the file of the Munsiff, Adoni? The answer in the negative was incorrect as in fact in O.S.366/1978, defendant-1 had been declared to be the Guru. To that extent the trial court was in error. But the subsequent proceedings arising out of O.S.366/78 was taken into consideration and on issue No. 3 it has been held that the judgment and decree in the said suit is binding on the plaintiff, because judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 366/78 was reversed in A.S.67/1980 and the said judgment in appeal was confirmed in S.A.17/87 by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. It is in the above context that respondent had preferred cross objections in R.A. No. 4/2007 filed by defendant 2 before the I Appellate Court. The I Appellate Court considering the points raised by the said court held in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff is the hereditary Guru of Kuruba community and the suit filed by him was maintainable and that the finding given by the trial court holding that defendant was Poojari of the mutt at Tekkalakote and that he was not the Guru of the Kuruba community. Consequently, it modified the findings on issue Nos. 3 and 4 and dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross objection field by respondent/plaintiff. Having regard to the previous judicial proceedings on the issue with regard to the right of the plaintiff to hold the post of Guru of Kuruba community following Revanasiddeshwara Sampradaya, in my view, the I Appellate Court was right in following the previous judicial dictum and granting the relief to the plaintiff. Therefore, on that aspect of the matter no substantial question of law would arise in this appeal.

The only other issue which remains is with regard to the maintainability of the suit itself. In that regard, learned Counsel for appellant drew my attention to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to contend that the suit was barred. Section 9 CPC reads as under:

"9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred. - The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Explanation I. - A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.

Explanation II. - For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place."

In Explanation (1) to Section of 9 CPC, it has been clearly stated that a suit wherein the right to property or to an office is contested, is of a civil nature, although the said right may be depending entirely on the question of religious rites or ceremonies. That being the case, decree of declaration and permanent injunction sought by the plaintiff in the instant suit was indeed of a civil nature. The said suit was not either expressly or implied barred. Both the courts have held that suit was maintainable. No other contradictory dicta has been brought to my notice to take a different view in the matter, particularly, in view of Explanation (1) to Section 9 of CPC holding that the suit is of civil nature and was maintainable before the competent court. Therefore, on the aspect of maintainability of the suit also no substantial question of law would arise.

Having regard to the findings given by the I Appellate Court, based on the previous judicial dicta as narrated above, I do not find any substantial question of law which would arise in the present appeal. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the I Appellate Court. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties to bear their respective costs.