Alora Jan and Others v. Vetiyeri Chandroth RaghuNath Nambiar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/23RD PHALGUNA 1933** ## **SA.No. 871 of 2001 ( )** **---------------------AS.59/1998 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY. OS.121/1994 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA.** **.............** ## **APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. ALORA JANU, D/O.KELAN, OCCUPATION NIL, THILLANKAERI AMSOM, PALLIAM DESOM OF THALASSERY TALUK.** **2. ALORA SOMATHA, -DO- -DO-.** **3. ALORA PURUSHU, -DO- -DO-.** **4. ALORA PRADEEP, -DO- -DO-.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:** **-------------------------------------------------------------** **VETIYERI CHANDROTH RAGHUNATHAN NAMBIAR, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, 52 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, MANGATTIDAM AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O. MANGATTIDAM, THALASSERY TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN, SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL.** **THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2012, ALONG WITH SA. NO. 906 OF 2001 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.** **----------------------------------------** ## **S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001** **and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008** **---------------------------------------** ## **Dated this 13[th] day of March, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 are admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit? (ii) Whether the courts below were justified in not appreciating the evidence in the correct perspective especially in view of the fact that identity of the plaint schedule property was not established and title and possession of the plaint schedule property is not proved? (iii) Whether lease of land made after the year 1964 is legally valid in the light of provisions in the Kerala Land Reforms Act? (iv) Whether the courts below were justified in relying upon the judgments of A23 to A27 especially because the previous suits O.S.No.197 of 1986 and O.S.No.121 of 1994 are pending in second appeal before this Hon'ble Court in S.A.No.906 of 2001 and S.A.No.871 of 2001? S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 arise from the common judgment and decree in A.S.Nos.59 of 1998 and 132 of 1997, respectively of the Sub Court, Thalassery which in turn arose from the common judgment and decree of the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba in O.S.No.121 of 1994 and 197 of 1986. 3. R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 arise from the common judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Thalassery in A.S.Nos.177, 179 and 178 of 2003, respectively. Those appeals arise from the common judgment and decree of the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba in O.S.Nos.581, 580 and 309 of 1997, respectively. Since the suits concern substantially the same properties, involve substantially the same parties and substantially the same questions for decision, I propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment though O.S.Nos.197 of 1986 and 121 of 1994 and the appeals arising therefrom are disposed of by a common judgment while the suits and appeals from which the regular second appeals arise are disposed of by separate common judgment. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as in O.S.No.121 of 1994. 4. Plaintiff (in O.S.No.121 of 1994 and 197 of 1986) and one of the plaintiffs (in O.S.Nos.309 of 1997, 580 of 1997 and S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 3 :- 581 of 1997) (Reghunathan Nambiar) claimed that 14.12 Acres in R.S.No.119/1 and R.S.No.122 and 52 cents on its east belonged in jenm to Kuttiatoor Chandroth thavazhi wherefrom his father, the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar obtained leasehold right in the year, 1936. Of the above said property, (described as plaint A schedule in O.S.No.121 of 1994), 52 cents towards the east was leased to Kelan, the father of first defendant by the said Kunhikrishnan Nambiar in the year, 1941. Ext.A1, Marupat is produced to show the said lease. Kelan, father of the first defendant left the place and his whereabouts are not known. The said 52 cents was then possessed by Mannan, uncle of the first defendant at a time when she was a minor and on her attaining majority, she took possession of the said 52 cents. Kunhikrishnan Nambiar granted lease of the rest of A schedule – 14.12Acres to his son, Reghunathan Nambiar (plaintiff) in the year, 1957 followed by Ext.A2, lease deed dated 25.03.1967 executed by the said Kunhikrishnan Nambiar in favour of the said Reghunathan Nambiar. He claimed that he allowed Narayan Nambiar to be in possession of 5 Acres and his sister, Komalam to be in possession of another 4 Acres. Rest of plaint A schedule is in his possession. The further allegation is that first defendant trespassed into portions of the property in his favour. Hence the suit for S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 4 :- recovery. 5. Defendant denied title and possession claimed by Reghunathan Nambiar, the plaintiff (in O.S.No.121 of 1994). She also denied the allegation of trespass. 6. Reghunathan Nambiar filed O.S.No.197 of 1986 first in point of time on the very same allegations as on title and possession as in O.S.No.121 of 1994 but through his next friend stating that on account of mental imbalance he was then not able to protect his interest. In that case defendant contended that she is in possession of 1.50Acres as entrusted to her orally by Kunhikrishnan Nambiar in the year, 1960. Later, she amended the written statement to contend that Reghunathan Nambiar or his father, the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar had no title or possession of the suit property. 7. O.S.No.309 of 1997 is for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction. In the said suit, same averments as in O.S.Nos.197 of 1986 and 121 of 1994 regarding title claimed by Reghunathan Nambiar, one of the plaintiff is made. In O.S.No.309 of 1997 apart from Reghunathan Nambiar, plaintiff in O.S.Nos.197 of 1986 and 121 of 1994 his sister, Komalam (to whom 4 Acres is said to be given) and one Narayan Nambiar to whom 5 Acres is said to be given are also plaintiffs. In S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 5 :- O.S.Nos.580 and 581 of 1997, all the legal heirs of the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar including Reghunathan Nambiar, the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.197 of 1986 and 121 of 1994 are plaintiffs. In O.S.No.580 and 581 of 1997, prayer is for recovery of damages from the defendant (the very same defendant in O.S.Nos.197 of 1986 and 121 of 1994) on the ground that she has committed waste in the property belonging to the plaintiffs therein by removing granite stones and cutting down trees. 8. As it stands, all the suits are decreed in favour of the respective plaintiff/plaintiffs. In O.S.Nos.197 of 1986, 121 of 1994 and 309 of 1997, recovery of possession of allegedly trespassed area was allowed on the strength of title pleaded respective plaintiff/ plaintiffs. In O.S.Nos.580 and 581 of 1997, based on the report of Advocate Commissioner and the evidence of PW1, plaintiffs are allowed to recover damages to the tune of `.75,000/- each but, payable to Reghunathan Nambiar, plaintiff in O.S.No.197 of 1986 and 121 of 1994 (who is also a plaintiff in O.S.Nos.580 and 581 of 1997). 9. Though defendant challenged judgment and decree in the above suits before the first appellate court, it was in vain. Hence these second appeals raising the substantial questions of law framed in R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008. In S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 6 :- ## S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001, the following substantial questions of law are framed: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit? (ii) Whether the courts below were right in permitting the suit to be filed through next friend of the plaintiff in the absence of any evidence regarding the mental incapacity of the plaintiff? (iii) Whether lease of land made after the year 1964 is legally valid in the light of the provisions in the Kerala Land Reforms Act? 10. Learned Senior Advocate for the defendant contended that in so far as the suits other than O.S.Nos.580 and 581 of 1997 are concerned, prayer is for recovery of possession on the strength of title, plaintiff is to prove the title and that weakness of the case set up by the defendant is no ground to grant relief in favour of the plaintiff. In O.S.Nos.580 and 581 of 1997, relief sought for being damages, the issue concerned is whether plaintiffs in the said suits and at any rate, Reghunathan Nambiar, one of the plaintiffs (plaintiff in O.S.Nos.197 of 1986 and 121 of 1994) has title over the property regarding which claim for damages is made. Learned Senior Advocate contends that on the available evidence, title claimed by Reghunathan Nambiar is not proved and cannot be accepted. It is also contended that there is S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 7 :- no acceptable evidence regarding possession of the property as well and in the circumstance, on the strength of possession also courts below could not have granted relief in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the decision in **Kunhikannan v. Nambeessan (1992(2) KLT SN 31 (Case No.43))** to contend that in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title, plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness of the case set up by the defendant. In **Kishori Lal Vs. Mr.Chaltibai (AIR 1959 SC 504)** it is held that admission cannot confer title. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff/plaintiffs would contend that title of plaintiff/plaintiffs is established by acceptable evidence and in such circumstance, onus of disproving title is with the defendant. Reliance is placed on the decision in **R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P Temple and Anr. (AIR 2003 SC 4548)** . Further contention is that even if this Court finds that there is any defect in the title claimed by plaintiff/plaintiffs, they are entitled to the relief prayed for on the strength of prior possession and as defendant has no better title. Reliance is placed on the decision in **Somnath Berman Vs. Dr.S.P.Raju and Anr. (AIR 1970 SC 846)** . S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 8 :- 12. It is the case of plaintiff/plaintiffs that the suit properties belonged in jenm to Kuttiatoor Chandroth thavazhi and in the year,1936, the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar obtained lease of the said properties. Ext.A10 is the kanam assignment deed of the year, 1936 executed by Kunhiraman Nambiar, karanavan of the above said thavazhi in favour of the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar (father of the plaintiff). Later, the said Kunhikrishnan Nambiar is said to have granted lease of 52 cents towards the eastern portion of the total extent covered by Ext.A10 to Kelan, father of the first defendant. Ext.A1 is Marupat of the year, 1941 executed by the said Kelan in favour of the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar, father of plaintiff. Ext.A1 concerns the property measuring 25 x 25 six feet koles which is approximately 52 cents. According to the plaintiff, (Reghunathan Nambiar), the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar, his father created an oral lease of the remaining property, ie 14.12 Acres in R.S.Nos.119/1 and 122 in his favour in the year, 1957 and that was followed by Ext.A2, lease deed dated 28.03.1967. 13. It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate that Ext.A10, Kanam assignment deed was only for a period of 10 years (from 1936) and that the said period expired by 1946 but there is no evidence to show that thereafter Kunhikrishnan S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 9 :- Nambiar continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property as a tenant. My attention is drawn to Ext.A9, proceedings of the Taluk Land Board (for short, "the TLB”) concerning the property in the possession of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar. It is contended that Ext.A9 would show that Kunhikrishnan Nambiar had, before the TLB pleaded that he has no possession of the property covered by Ext.A10 (as on 01.01.1970). It is also contended by the learned Senior Advocate that no reliable evidence is produced to show that after the expiry of 10 years referred to in Ext.A10, Kanam assignment deed, Kunhikrishnan Nambiar was in possession of the property. 14. A further contention learned Senior Advocate advanced is that the plea of oral lease in favour of plaintiff (Reghunathan Nambiar) by Kunhikrishnan Nambiar, the father cannot be accepted. It is contended that going by Ext.A2, plaintiff (Reghunathan Nambiar) was aged only 7 years in the year, 1957 and an oral lease could not have been made in favour of a minor not represented by anybody and was quite improbable also. According to learned Senior Advocate, Ext.A2 being a document executed by the plaintiff (Reghunathan Nambiar) in favour of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar on 28.03.1967, it suffers from legal infirmities, firstly that no lease could then be created as it S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 10 :- was prohibited by Sec.74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, "the Act”) and secondly, plaintiff (Reghunathan Nambiar) being a minor then was not competent to execute Ext.A2, lease deed on 28.03.1967. It is also contended that Ext.A2 is only a Marupat said to be executed by the plaintiff (Reghunathan Nambiar) in favour of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar and there is no evidence to show that Kunhikrishnan Nambiar had accepted and acted upon the same. 15. So far as the possession claimed by Reghunathan Nambiar from 1957 is concerned, true that at that time he was aged around 7 years . It is relevant to note that in Ext.A2, there is reference to Reghunathan Nambiar being in possession of the property even before 25.03.1967. I must also bear in mind that the said document is executed by the plaintiff, Reghunathan Nambiar in favour of his father, the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar who is said to have given to Reghunathan Nambiar possession of the property in the year, 1957, for whatever reason it be. Ext.A9 would show that in the proceedings before the TLB, the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar had claimed that he was not in possession of the property covered by Ext.A10 and that the said property was in possession of the his son, Reghunathan Nambiar. In other words, by the said statement Kunhikrishnan Nambiar S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 11 :- was acknowledging the claim made by Reghunathan Nambiar vide Ext.A2. In that view of the matter, no further evidence is required to show that Ext.A2 was accepted and acted upon by the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar. Even if the lease in favour of a minor is taken as invalid, Reghunathan Nambiar got possession of the property. 16. I do not forget that defendant is not a party to Ext.A9 proceedings nor was notice issued to her. But, I am not inclined to think that since Ext.A9 proceeding does not concern the property which was admittedly in her possession (52 cents), notice to her was required in the said proceeding. As aforesaid, statement made by the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar the assessee in Ext.A1, proceeding that he is not in possession of the property and that property is in the possession of Reghunathan Nambiar, his son is sufficient indication that Kunhikrishnan Nambiar had accepted and acted upon Ext.A2. There is no reason why on 25.03.1967 a document like Ext.A2 should have been falsely created stating that Reghunathan Nambiar is already in possession of the property. Therefore it appears to me that even prior to 25.03.1967 on which day Ext.A2 was executed, Reghunathan Nambiar was in possession of the property. In that view of the matter there is no reason to disbelieve the version of S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 12 :- plaintiffs that Reghunathan Nambiar got possession of the property in the year 1957. 17. One document that is pressed into service to show that neither Kunhikrishnan Nambiar nor Reghunathan Nambiar had possession of the property is Ext.B8. Learned Senior Advocate has also referred me to the evidence of PW1, brother of plaintiff. 18. Ext.B8 is the copy of partition deed of the year, 1958 executed in the jenmi tharvad. It is contended by learned Senior Advocate that Ext.B8 takes in the suit property as well. PW1 was cross examined about that and he stated that he has not perused Ext.B8 and does not know whether the suit properties are also dealt in Ext.B8. 19. So far as Ext.B8 is concerned, it was something beyond the control of Reghunathan Nambiar or Kunhikrishnan Nambiar. On the other hand, it is relevant to note from Ext.A16, copy of suit register in O.S.No.643 of 1936 filed by Kunhiraman Nambiar, Karanavan of jenmi thavazhi. There, the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar is arrayed as 42[nd] defendant describing him as a kanari (Ext.A10 is a kanam assignment deed of the year 1936 executed by the said Kunhiraman Nambiar). Therefore, it is clear from Ext.A16 that under Ext.A10, Kunhiraman Nambiar, on S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 13 :- behalf of the jenmi thavazhi had created lease of the suit properties in favour of the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar. In that view of the matter, even if the suit property is included in Ext.B8, that does not in any way affect the claim made by the Reghunathan Nambiar and under the late Kunhikrishnan Nambiar. 20. The next argument learned Senior Advocate has advanced to show that Ext.A2 is invalid is that it is executed on 25.03.1967 at a time when creation of lease was prohibited under Sec.74 of the Act. Learned Senior Advocate submits that if Kunhikrishnan Nambiar had already parted with possession of the property as he claimed in Ext.A9, proceeding as per the (alleged) oral lease in favour of his son, Reghunathan Nambiar, Kunhikrishnan Nambiar can only a treated as an intermediary under Sec.72 of the Act. If that be so, such right could not have been conferred to the plaintiff as per Ext.A2. In this connection, it is pointed out that Ext.A2 is executed by Reghunanthan Nambiar when he was a minor and hence incompetent to enter into a contract. 21. Referring to the previous possession of Reghunathan Nambiar referred to in Ext.A2, I stated that there is no reason to reject that version. So far as Ext.A2 is concerned, I must S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 14 :- remember that an oral lease had already been created and Ext.A2 is only the execution of a Marupat. Therefore even in the absence of Ext.A2, possession given to Reghunathan Nambiar would stand. 22. So far as validity of the oral lease followed by Ext.A2 when Reghunathan Nambiar was a minor is concerned, he elected to proceed with it even after attaining majority. 23. It is pointed out that Ext.A2 is executed under suspicious circumstances, in a bid to somehow retain property of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar (obviously to save the property from the ceiling provisions under the KLR Act). Assuming so, whether Ext.A2 has taken effect is primarily a matter between Reghunathan Nambiar and his father which, having regard to the circumstances I have stated above, has taken effect. I must also bear in mind that defendant cannot justifiably deny the title of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar. Ext.A1, Marupat executed by Kelan, father of defendant in favour of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar is not disputed and admittedly that concerns the 52 cents towards east of the entire property. In Ext.A1, the western boundary of the said 52 cents is described as “അട�യത�ടതത ക�വശമ�ള സല�”. (The expression “അട�യത�ടതത” is used to denote respect to the person concerned, ie, the person in whose favour Ext.A1 is executed S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 15 :- -Kunhikrishnan Nambiar). Thus, Ext.A1 itself is sufficient indication that property on the west of the 52 cents referred to therein was in the possession of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar. It is also relevant to note that tracing right to Ext.A1, defendant filed application for purchase of landlords' right over the said 52 cents. Ext.X1 is the application filed by the defendant in that regard. There, the first respondent is Kunhikrishnan Nambiar, father of Reghunathan Nambiar. Second respondent is Karthyani Amma representing the ultimate landlord. Ext.X4 is the affidavit of defendant (as applicant in O.A.No.1556 of 1976). There, she has claimed the landlord's right over the 52 cents in R.S.No.119/1, (covered by Ext.A1) and the property is mentioned as “��നത�ര� ��ട� എന ജന പ�ര�യ അട�കള��ന� �റബ�ല ഒര� ഖണ�”. Though defendant when examined as DW1 denied signing Ext.A4, it is to be noted that it is attested by the Village Officer concerned. Ext.B1 is the purchase certificate admittedly issued in favour of defendant concerning the 52 cents and the western boundary therein is the property in the possession of respondent in O.A.No.1556 of 1976 (Kunhikrishnan Nambiar). 24. It is also relevant to note that originally, in paragraph 5 of the written statement in O.S.No.197 of 1986 plea raised by the defendant was that she got 1.50 Acres from Kunhikrishnan S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 16 :- Nambiar by oral entrustment in the year, 1960. May be, to suite her convenience she amended the written statement to contend that Kunhikrishnan Nambiar had no title and possession of the property, and that contention is repeated in the written statement in the other suits. Bearing these circumstances in mind I do not find any merit in the denial of title and possession claimed by the defendants. 25. In the light of what I have stated above, finding of the courts below that plaintiff has title over the suit property has to stand. At any rate, possession of the properties was with Kunhikrishnan Nambiar and under him, Reghunathan Nambiar. 26. So far as the recovery of possession prayed for in O.S.No.197 of 1986, 121 of 1994 and 309 of 1997 is concerned, Ext.C6, plan identifies the suit properties and the trespassed areas. As it now stands, recovery is allowed with respect to plots B, C, D and E in Ext.C6. That, as per Ext.C6 forms part of the 14.12 Acres in R.S.No.119/1 and 122/1 which, I said Kunhikrishnan Nambiar acquired as per Ext.A10, Kanam assignment deed of the year, 1936 and following him, Reghunathan Nambiar. 27. Even assuming that the plea of defendant that by oral lease of 1957 and by Ext.A2 no right is created in favour of S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 17 :- plaintiff is accepted, I must note that then title vested with Kunhikrishnan Nambiar and as legal heir of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar, Reghunathan Nambiar is entitled to file the suits for rejectment of trespassers. It is relevant to note that as per Ext.A11, release deed other legal heirs of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar released their right in the property to Reghunathan Nambiar. Thus he got title to the suit property. Therefore he was competent to maintain the suits and recover possession. 28. What remained is the decree for damages granted in O.S.Nos.580 and 581 of 1997. There, apart from Reghunathan Nambiar others are also made plaintiffs. In O.S.No.309 of 1997, his sister Komalam and Narayanan Nambiar to whom certain portions were given are made also plaintiffs. All other legal heirs of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar are also plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.580 and 581 of 1997. 29. Referring to Exts.C1 to C6 and the evidence of PW1, trial court found that vast area of the suit properties was excavated and granite stones were removed. CW1, the Advocate Commissioner has given evidence that such excavation and removal of granite stones continued for several years. DW1, defendant has admitted that she cut down cashew trees and extracted granite stones. It is in the above circumstance that the S.A.Nos.871 and 906 of 2001 and R.S.A.Nos.258, 277 and 338 of 2008 -: 18 :- Advocate Commissioner assessed damages payable to Reghunathan Nambiar, plaintiff as `.75,000/- each which having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence involve no substantial questions of law requiring decision. 30. The substantial questions of law framed in these appeals are answered above. Second appeal fails. They are dismissed. No costs. Sd/- **(THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)** Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge