Regular Second Appeal No. 1073 of 2005, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** ## **RSA.No. 1073 of 2005** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN AS 276/1979 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY DATED 14-01-2005** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN OS 97/1976 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THALASSERY DATED 05-06-1979** **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 3, 4, 6, 35, 36, 37, 39 & PLAINTIFF 1, 3, 4 & 6 AND DEFENDANTS 38, 39, 40 & 42 :** - **1 THAINGOLI MADATHIL RAMADASAN NAMBIAR S/O. CHANTHU NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT MADHAVI SADANAM,, CHALA EAST, KANNUR.** - **2 BHARGAVI AMMA T.M. D/O.CHATHU NAMBIAR RESIDING AT -DO-.** - **3 T.M. REMA D/O. CHATHU NAMBIAR RESIDING AT VENGACHERRY, KOYYODE, KANNUR.** - **4 SURENDRA BABU S/O. CHATHU NAMBIAR RESIDING AT -DO-.** - **5 RAMAN NAMBIAR T.M.S/O.CHANDU NAMBIAR RESIDING AT MANIKKOTH HOUSE, POST EDAKKAD,, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **6 KUTTIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR S/O. CHANDU NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT -DO-.** - **7 GOURI AMMA T.M. D/O. CHANDU NAMBIAR RESIDING AT -DO-.** - **8 BHARGAVI T.M. D/O. CHANDU NAMBIAR RESIDING AT -DO-.** **BY ADVS. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.CIBI THOMAS** RSA 1073 OF 2005 2 **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT NO.2 TO 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, RESPONDENTS 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 & 65:** - **1 THAINGOLI MADATHIL SUSHEELA AMMA, D/O. MALU AMMA, RESIDING AT THAINGOLI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **2 THAINGOLI MADATHIL SURENDRAN, S/O. SUSHEELA AMMA, RESIDING AT THAINGOLI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **3 THAINGOLI MADATHIL SOBHA, D/O. SUSHEELA AMMA, RESIDING AT THAINGOLI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **4 THAINGOLI MADATHIL RAVINDRAN, S/O. SUSHEELA AMMA, RESIDING AT THAINGOLI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **5 THAINGOLI MADATHIL MANOHARAN, S/O. SUSHEELA AMMA, RESIDING AT THAINGOLI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **6 THAINGOLI MADATHIL NIRMALA, D/O. SUSHEELA AMMA, RESIDING AT THAINGOLI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - ***7 THAINGOLI MADATHIL RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR, S/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, RESIDING AT SREERAG, CHANDROTH PARAMBA, ERANHOLI, TELLICHERRY (DIED - LR'S IMPLEAED)** - **8 THAINGOLI MADATHIL LALITHA AMMA, D/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, RESIDING AT 2/181, KRISHNAKRIPA, P.O. MOTTAMMAL, KANNAPURAM, (CHEERUKUNNU), KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **9 THAINGOLI MADATHIL PARVATHI AMMA, D/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI SADAN, POST KADACHIRA, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **10 C.M. SIVADASAN NAMBIAR, S/O. LAKSHI AMMA, RESIDING AT -DO-** - **11 K. PREETHA, D/O. SANTHA AMMA, RESIDING AT -DO-** - **12 K. PRASAD, S/O. SANTHA AMMA, RESIDING AT -DO-** RSA 1073 OF 2005 3 - **13 K.SHEEJA, D/O. ANANDAVALLI, RESIDING AT ASWATHI, M.M. 10/657, KARETTA, VIA MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. (ANANDAVALLI WRONGLY SUGANDA VALLI)** - **14 K. SHAJI, S/O. ANANDA VALLI, RESIDING -DO-** - **15 T.M. BALAKRISHNA NAMBIAR, S/O. KUNHI MADHAVI AMMA, THAINGOLI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O., EDAKKAD, KANNUR.** - **16 T.M. CHANDRAN NAMBIAR, S/O. KUNHI MADHAVI AMMA, THAINGOLI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O., EDAKKAD, KANNUR.** - **17 T.M. BALAGOPALAN NAMBIAR, S/O. MALU AMMA, THAIGOLI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR.** - **18 T.M. SUDHARAKARAN NAMBIAR, S/O. MALU AMMA, THAIGOLI MADATHIL HOUSE, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR.** - ****19 T.M. ANANDAN NAMBIAR, S/O. NARAYANI AMMA, VALIAPADAM TEACHER'S COLONY, PALAKKAD, (DIED - LR'S IMPLEADED)** - **20 T.M. CHANDRAN NAMBIAR, S/O. NARAYANI AMMA, VALIAPADAM TEACHER'S COLONY, PALAKKAD,** - **21 T.M. LEELA AMMA, D/O. NARAYANI AMMA, C/O. KALAVAGHI B3-SUKASH VILLA, PARIPOORNA ESTATE, S.K. MUTHUR, COIMBATORE.** - **22 T.M. KRISHNARAJ, S/O. LEELA AMMA, RESIDING AT PERINAYAKAM PALAYAM, COIMBATORE.** - **23 T.M. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. GEETHA, RESIDING AT VALIYAPADAM TEACHER'S COLONY, PALAKKAD 3.** - **24 T.M. SREEJA, D/O. GEETHA AMMA, D/O. T.M. RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING -DO-** RSA 1073 OF 2005 4 - **25 T.M. SIVASANKARAN,** - **S/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA, MANIKKOTH HOUSE, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **26 T.M. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. MOOKAMBIKA AMMA, RESIDING AT NO.37, PUKAZHENTHU STREET, MGR NAGAR, CHENNAI-78.** - **27 VANAJA AMMA,** - **D/O. MOOKAMBIKA AMMA, RESIDING AT 15/1 SARAYU APARTMENT, GANAPATHY STREET, ROYAPETTA, CHENNAI-14.** - **28 T.M. RAJMOHAN NAMBIAR,** - **S/O. MOOKAMBIKA AMMA, RESIDING AT NO.10 11 HARISON APARTMENTS, 1030, THIRUVATTIYOOR HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI-19.** - **29 T.M. LAKSHMANAN NAMBIAR, S/O. MOOKAMBIKA AMMA, PRAYAD PRATHEWSH KOODAKKATTERI HOUSE, POST EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - * 30 T.M. SHANTHI, D/O. VANAJA, RESIDING AT 15/014 SARAYU APARTMENT, GANAPATHY STREET, ROYAPETTA, CHENNAI -14.(DIED - LR'S IMPLEADED)** - **31 T.M. VASANTHA. D/O. VANAJA, RESIDING -DO-** - **32 T.M. SURESH, D/O. VANAJA, RESIDING -DO- (WRONGLY SHOWN AS SUNILKUMAR).** - **33 T.M. PARVATHI AMMA, D/O. PARVATHI AMMA, OMKARAM, NADAL, EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **34 T.M.MURALI, S/O. PARVATHI, -DO-** - **35 T.M. PRASANTHA, D/O. PARVATHI, RESIDING -DO- (NAME CORRECTED)** **-------------------------------** **THE NAME OF T.M. PRASANTHA IS CORRECTED AS T.M. PREETHA @ PRASANTHA VIDE ORDER DATED 28/06/2011 IN IA .1005/2011.** - **36 T.M. NARAYANIKUTTY AMMA, D/O. NANIKUTTY AMMA, MANGADAN VEEDU, NEAR II RAILWAY GATE, THIRUVANGAD, TELLICHERRY.** RSA 1073 OF 2005 5 - **37 T.M. VELAYUDHAN NAMBIAR,** - **S/O.NANIKUTTY AMMA, RESIDING -DO-** - **38 T.M. BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR,** - **S/O. NANIKUTTY AMMA, RESIDING -DO-** - **39 UCHIRUMMAL KANDIYIL MEEZHATTIL SARADA, D/O. JANAKI AMMA, CENTRAL SCHOOL STAFF QUARTERS HOLIDAY CAMP. COLABA, BOMBAY-58.** - **40 RAJAM,** - **D/O. JANAKI AMMA, 14/332, D.N. NAGAR, ANDHERI WEST, BOMBAY -58** - **41 PARUKUTTY AMMA, D/O. JANAKI AMMA, FLAT NO.203, S213/4A, MANEESH NAGAR, ANDHERI WEST, BOMBAY-58.** - **42 KAMALAKSHI, D/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, CHETTIAMPURATH, KOOLOTH HOUSE, EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **43 JAYALAKSHMI, D/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT CHIRIYATH HOUSE, EDAKKAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **44 RAJAGOPALAN,** - **S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING -DO-** - **45 JAYASREE,** - **D/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING -DO-** - **46 BALAN, S/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT OTTAYI HOUSE, POST EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **47 LAKSHMI AMMA,** - **D/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT -DO-** - **48 PARVATHI AMMA,** - **D/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT -DO-** - **49 VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMA, D/O. CHATHU NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT MADHAVI SADANAM, CHALA EAST, KANNUR.** - **50 PADMANABHAN T.M., S/O. CHATHU NAMBIAR, RESIDING -DO-** RSA 1073 OF 2005 6 ||**51**|**ADDL. R51.MATHRUBHOOMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO-**| |---|---|---| |||**LTD.,**| |||**KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERIOR GENERAL**| |||**MANAGER, COMPANY AFFAIRS OF LAW SECRETARY.**| |||**---------------------------------------------**| |||**ADDITIONAL R51 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED**| |||**14/12/12 IN IA 1341/11.**| |*|**52**|**ADDL. R52. RAJESH,**| |||**SREERAGH, CHANDROTH PARAMBA, ERANHOLY, THALASSERY.**| |*|**53**|**ADDL. R53. SREEJA,**| |||**SREERAGH, CHANDROTH PARAMBA, ERANHOLY, THALASSERY.**| |||**-------------------------------------------**| |||**ADDITIONAL R52 AND R53 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL**| |||**REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R7 AS PER ORDER DATED**| |||**08/07/2013 IN IA 1844/2006.**| |***|**54**|**ADDL. R54. AMRUTHA**| |||**AGED 15 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY FATHER**| |||**SATHYAN, 15/5 SARAYU APARTMENTS, GANAPATHI STREET,**| |||**NEAR MUSIC ACADAMY, ROYAPETTA, CHENNAI - 14.**| |||**-------------------------------------------------**| |||**ADDITIONAL R54 IS IMPLEADED AS LEGAL**| |||**REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R30 AS PER ORDER DATED**| |||**22/09/2017 IN IA 2388/2016.**| |**|**55**|**ADDL. R55. VISWANATHAN,**| |||**S/O. LATE ANANDAN NAMBIAR, AMBADI (H), C.N. PURAM,**| |||**VELAYAPADAM, PALAKKAD - 678005.**| |**|**56**|**ADDL. R56. MEENAMBIKA,**| |||**D/O. LATE ANANDAN NAMBIAR, AMBADI (H), C.N. PURAM,**| |||**VELAYAPADAM, PALAKKAD - 678005.**| |**|**57**|**ADDL. R57. HEMAMBIKA,**| |||**D/O. LATE ANANDAN NAMBIAR, AMBADI (H), C.N. PURAM,**| |||**VELAYAPADAM, PALAKKAD - 678005.**| |||**--------------------------------------**| |||**ADDITIONAL R55 TO R57 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS**| |||**OF DECEASED R19 AS PER ORDER DATED 22/09/2017 IN IA**| |||**2385/2016.**| **BY ADVS. SMT.SEEMA** **SRI.M.V.AMARESAN V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN (R8) SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY (R1 TO R7)** RSA 1073 OF 2005 7 **SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT (R25) SRI.R.D.SHENOI (SR.), SRI.S.VINOD BHAT, D.ANIL KUMAR (R51)** **THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** RSA 1073 OF 2005 8 ## **JUDGMENT** Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4 and 6 and defendants 38, 39, 40 and 42 in a suit for partition are the appellants in the second appeal. 2. The facts, bereft of unnecessary details, are the following : The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 53 are members of a Marumakkathayam tarwad. Ext.A1 is a document executed by the members of the tarwad on 15.10.1887. Ext.A1 is styled as 'Nikschayarekha'. In terms of Ext.A1, parties 1 to 9 therein and their successors were formed as one thavazhy and parties 10 to 16 therein and their successors were formed as another thavazhy. The thavazhy of parties 1 to 9 in Ext.A1 was referred to in the document as the first thavazhy and the thavazhy of parties 10 to 16 was referred to in the document as the second thavazhy. The properties over which the tarwad had rights at the relevant time were divided into two portions in terms of Ext.A1 and the first thavazhy was permitted to possess and enjoy one portion of the properties by paying its revenue and other dues and the second thavazhy was permitted to enjoy the remaining portion of the properties in the same fashion. The case set out by the plaintiffs in the plaint is that Ext.A1 was only an arrangement for maintenance and the properties of the tarwad are liable to be partitioned among its members. Defendants 1 to 25 are the members of the first thavazhy and defendants 26 to 53 are the members of the RSA 1073 OF 2005 9 second thavazhy. The plaint B schedule contains the immovable properties sought to be partitioned and the plaint C schedule contains the movable properties sought to be partitioned. The remaining defendants are persons claiming rights over the properties sought to be partitioned. 3. While some of the defendants supported the case of the plaintiffs, some resisted the suit, contending that the properties of the tarwad have, in fact, been partitioned in terms of Ext.A1 document among the two thavazhies mentioned therein and the plaintiffs are, therefore, not entitled to seek partition of the very same properties again. The trial court found that Ext.A1 would not amount to an outright partition and consequently decreed the suit. Defendants 1, 6, 9 to 13, 29 and 54 to 60 challenged the decision of the trial court in appeal. The appellate court found that Ext.A1 was an outright partition of the properties of the tarwad and consequently dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4 and 6 as also defendants 38, 39, 40 and 42 are aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned senior counsel for additional respondent No.51 who claims rights over the plaint B schedule item No.20 property. 5. The following are the substantial questions of law on which notice was issued in the second appeal : (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower appellate court was correct in law in reversing the well considered and RSA 1073 OF 2005 10 reasoned interpretation of Ext.A1 as a deed of family settlement? (2) Whether the lower appellate court's reasoning that Ext.A1 is an outright partition is correct on the various recitals in Ext.A1? 6. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, the question on which notice was issued in the second appeal is re-framed thus : “Does Ext.A1 document amount to an outright partition of the properties of the tarwad mentioned therein?” 7. After referring to a large number of decisions involving questions relating to interpretation of documents in the nature of Ext.A1, in **Krishnan Damodaran and others v. Narayanan Kumaran and others** (1951 KLT 424), a Full Bench of the TravancoreCochin High Court has laid down the principles to be followed while deciding the question as to whether the document involved would amount to an outright partition or only a maintenance arrangement. The principles are: (1) that the nomenclature of the document may not by itself decisive; (2) that the intention of the parties to the document has to be gathered from the document itself by construing and harmonizing the recitals therein as a whole ; (3) that where the terms of the document are definite and unambiguous and would indicate the intention of the parties, the court should not travel outside the terms of the document for construing the document; (4) due weight has to be given to the evidence as to how the parties to the document have understood it and acted upon it and (5) that if the terms of the document clearly or by necessary implication indicate that the RSA 1073 OF 2005 11 allotment of properties has been made for all time to come without any liability to readjustment to suit the altered circumstances of the family in future, the document has to be accepted as a partition deed. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated by this court in a large number of cases decided later. Though it was held in the said case that permanency of the arrangement is a decisive and safe test in favour of construction of a document as a partition deed, in some of the later cases, it was clarified that permanency is though an essential feature of an outright partition, it does not follow that every permanent arrangement is a partition, for permanent arrangement for maintenance was not uncommon in marumakkathayam tarwads. The essence of the aforesaid principles is that the court has to see in a case of this nature as to whether the parties to the document have intended to put an end to the joint ownership of the properties for the purpose of enjoying the properties given to them absolutely. Ext.A1 document has to be interpreted keeping in mind the aforesaid principles. 8. Ext.A1 is a document executed about 90 years prior to the institution of the suit. It recites that the properties of the tarwad were being looked after by party No. 6 therein as there were no elder male members in the tarwad. It also recites that though the management of the properties was entrusted later to the son of party No.6 when he attained the appropriate age, he could not look after RSA 1073 OF 2005 12 the properties properly and as a result, the debts of the tarwad increased and in addition, there were disputes among the members of the tarwad which led even to litigations. The document also recites that the disputes among the members of the tarwad have been resolved through mediation and the arrangement evidenced by the document is effected for avoiding future disputes. As noted, in terms of Ext.A1, parties 1 to 9 therein and their successors were formed as one thavazhy and parties 10 to 16 and their successors were formed as another thavazhy. The properties over which the tarwad was holding rights at the relevant time were also divided in terms of the said document and one thavazhy was permitted to possess and enjoy one portion of the properties by paying its dues and the other thavazhy was permitted to enjoy the remaining portion of the properties in the same fashion. There is no provision in Ext.A1 document for re-adjustment of the assets of the tarwad at a later point of time for any reason, whatsoever. The aforesaid facts would indicate that the arrangement made in terms of Ext.A1 was a permanent arrangement. 9. The question now is as to whether the permanent arrangement made in terms of Ext.A1 was intended to sever the joint ownership of the properties and to hold the properties separately and absolutely by the two thavazhies mentioned in the document. In order to resolve the said question, the remaining clauses in the document RSA 1073 OF 2005 13 also need to be looked into. The document recites, among others, that the debts incurred till then by the Karnavan of the tarawad amounting to Rs.1,280/- shall be liquidated equally by the two thavazhies. The document also recites that if the liability fastened on one thavazhy is not liquidated by them, the properties allotted to that thavazhy alone would be liable for the same. The document also recites that if any further amount is required to be raised by way of loan for the requirement of any of the thavazhies, the same shall be raised on the security of the properties given to that thavazhy. There is no provision in the document for a common karanavanship for the tarwad mentioned in Ext.A1. The aforesaid clauses, according to me, would make out unambiguously the intention of the parties to hold the properties separately thereafter. 10. Now, let us see as to how the parties to the document have understood the terms of Ext.A1 and acted upon it. As noted by the appellate court, it is admitted by the plaintiffs themselves in the plaint that all the properties allotted to the thavazhies in terms of Ext.A1 were not available at the time of institution of the suit, indicating clearly that they have been alienated by the members of the respective thavazhies as properties exclusively belonged to them. Ext.B10 is a registered partition deed executed by the members of the first thavazhy mentioned in Ext.A1 document on 17.6.1967. In terms of the said document, the properties allotted to the first thavazhy were RSA 1073 OF 2005 14 partitioned among its members. Ext.B11 is a document executed in the year 1972 by one of the parties to Ext.B10 partition deed. In terms of Ext.B11, a property allotted to the executant of the said document in terms of Ext.B10 has been alienated by him. The aforesaid documents are documents executed long prior to the institution of the suit. It is evident from the aforesaid facts that the parties to Ext.A1 document also understood Ext.A1 and acted upon the same as an outright partition deed. 11. It is seen that Ext.A1 contains a specific recital to the effect that if at all any debt is to be created for the benefit of one thavazhy charged on the properties allotted to it, the major members of both thavazhies should join to execute documents in this regard. The document also contains a recital to the effect that individual members of the tarwad cannot create any encumbrance in respect of the properties of the thavazhies. The document also recites that the expenditures for conducting ceremonies etc in the tarwad are to be met by the thavazhies in equal moieties. Ext.A3 is the document executed by the karanavans of both thavazhies together for encumbering an item of property allotted to one of the thavazhies. It is based on the aforesaid recitals contained in Ext.A1 and the parties to Ext.A3 document, that the trial court came to the conclusion that Ext.A1 is not an outright partition and the same would amount only to a maintenance arrangement. The recital in the document to the effect RSA 1073 OF 2005 15 that individual members of the tarwad cannot create any encumbrance in respect of the properties of thavazhies may not be of any relevance because the properties have been partitioned in terms of Ext.A1 only among the two thavazhies mentioned in the document. Likewise, Ext.A3 also may not be of any relevance as the same is not one executed in in accordance with Ext.A1 document. Similarly, the recital in Ext.A1 that the expenditures to be incurred for conducting ceremonies etc. in the tarwad have to be shared in equal moieties by itself would not indicate that the parties to Ext.A1 had intended to continue united in the same tarwad, especially in the light of various other clauses in the same document indicating a different intention altogether. The question that remains to be considered is as to whether the clause prohibiting creation of encumbrance of the properties of thavazhies without the junction of the major male members of both thavazhies is indicative of the intention of the parties to Ext.A1 to continue the joint ownership of the properties. As held in **Krishnan Damodaran** , while construing a document in the nature of the instant one, the right approach would be to read the document as a whole and not by reading the isolated passages therein. If one try to harmonise and construe the recitals in Ext.A1 as a whole, the aforesaid clause restricting creation of encumbrance of the properties without the junction of all the male members of both the thavazhies cannot be construed as one evidencing the intention of the RSA 1073 OF 2005 16 parties to continue united in the same tarwad, especially when the parties to the document have understood and acted upon the document as a partition deed for almost a century. The question is thus answered against the appellants. The second appeal, in the circumstances, is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **JUDGE** TGS