Regular Second Appeal Nos. 446 of 2022 & 470 of 2022

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1944 RSA NO. 446 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2020 IN AS 72/2010 OF** **SUB COURT,ATTINGAL** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11/12/2009 IN OS 75/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL** ## **APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:** DR.PRAKASAM @ PRAKASH AGED 73 YEARS S/O.LATE SADASIVAN, AGED 73 YEARS,HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,EDAVANAKADU VEEDU,KUNNUMMEL,KILIMANOOR AND RUNNING PRAKASH HOMOEO CLINIC,PUTHIYAKAVU,PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE, KILIMANOOR,CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-691 536. BY ADV J.JAYAKUMAR ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:** PRASAD S/O.LATE SADASIVAN, AGED 66 YEARS,EDAVANAKADU VEEDU,KUNNUMMEL,KILIMANOOR,PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE, KILIMANOOR,CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-691 536. BY ADVS. M.P.RAMNATH BEPIN PAUL S.SANDHYA SHALU VARGHESE K.S AKSHAY MOHAN UMA R.KAMATH GENTLE C.D. P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) M.VARGHESE VARGHESE S.DEEPAK R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 2 ANTONY THARIAN VARGHESE VARGHESE.M THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.11.2022, ALONG WITH RSA.470/2022, THE COURT ON 18.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 3 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1944 RSA NO. 470 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2020 IN AS 73/2010 OF SUB COURT,ATTINGAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11/12/2009 IN OS 57/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL** ## **APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:** DR.PRAKASAM @PRAKASH AGED 73 YEARS S/O LATE SADASIVAN, HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL PRACTITIONER EDAVANAKAVU VEEDU, KUNNUMMEL, KILIMANOOR AND RUNNING PRAKASH HOMOEO CLINIC, PUTHIYAKAVU, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE, KILIMANOOR. CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 691 536. BY ADV J.JAYAKUMAR ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:** PRASAD AGED 66 YEARS S/O. LATE SADASIVAN, EDAVANAKAVU VEEDU, KUNNUMMEL, KILIMANOOR PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 691 536. BY ADVS. M.P.RAMNATH BEPIN PAUL S.SANDHYA SHALU VARGHESE R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 4 K.S AKSHAY MOHAN UMA R.KAMATH GENTLE C.D. P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) M.VARGHESE VARGHESE S.DEEPAK ANTONY THARIAN VARGHESE VARGHESE.M THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.11.2022, ALONG WITH RSA.446/2022, THE COURT ON 18.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 5 **M.R.ANITHA, J** ****************** R.S.A.No.446 of 2022 & R.S.A.No.470 of 2022 ---------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of November, 2022 ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** R.S.A.No.446 of 2022 arose out of the judgment in A.S.No.72/2010 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Attingal which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.75/04 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Attingal. R.S.A.No.470/2022 has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.73/2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Attingal which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.55/2004 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Attingal. Both appeals were heard together and a common judgment was passed. 2. O.S.No.57/2004 has been filed for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule premises with arrears of rent. R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 6 (Parties would be referred as per their status in O.S.No.57/2004). Plaintiff obtained the plaint schedule property as per sale deed No.4780/1986 of Kilimanoor S.R.O executed by the mother. Thereafter, he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Defendant, who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff, is conducting a Homeo Dispensary in the plaint schedule premises. As per an oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on 17/12/1995, rent was enhanced to Rs.500/-. But the rent upto December, 2000 alone has been paid and it is in arrears from 2001 onwards. Though vacant possession of the building was demanded, defendant did not surrender the vacant possession of the building to the plaintiff. Plaintiff issued lawyer notice dated 17.12.2003 terminating the tenancy arrangement and calling surrender of the vacant possession of the building, but, with no result. Hence the suit . 3. Defendant filed written statement contending that he commenced the Homeo clinic inside the plaint schedule property. The relationship between the parties is admitted. Mother R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 7 entrusted the right, possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and building to the defendant on receiving 56 grams of gold ornaments from his wife at the time of marriage of his sister. Since 1980, he has been in continuous uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property and he had effected valuable improvements by expending about Rs.35,000/-. Nobody objected his uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property and hence he is occupying the premises for the last more than 25 years and he is paying electricity charges, water charges, building tax and professional charges regularly and thereby perfected title over the plaint schedule property by adverse possession and limitation. Even if mother executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the title so claimed by the plaintiff is lost by adverse possession and limitation. There is no landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Defendant never paid rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff attempted to dispossess the defendant, the defendant filed O.S.No.75/04 to declare his title R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 8 and possession over the plaint schedule property and building. So, there is no reason to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property. 4. O.S.No.75/04 was filed by the defendant in O.S.No.57/04 seeking for declaration and consequential injunction. All the contentions in the written statement in O.S.No.57/04 are reiterated in the plaint. Defendant who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.57/04 filed written statement reiterating the averments in the plaint in O.S.No.57/2004. 5. Both cases were tried jointly taking O.S.No.57/2004 as the main case. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked from the side of the plaintiff in O.S.No.57/2004. Defendant in O.S.No.57/2004, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.75/2004 was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B35 were marked from his side. 6. Learned Munsiff, on appreciating the facts and circumstances, found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant is a tenant and further found the status of the R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 9 defendant as an unauthorised occupant and that defendant has no right to continue in possession and accordingly plaintiff was found to be entitled to get recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting him. Prayer for arrears of rent was disallowed. As far as O.S.No.75/2004 is concerned, it was dismissed with cost finding that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the defendant perfected title over the schedule property by adverse possession. 7. Against the judgment and decree the defendant in O.S.No.57/2004 (plaintiff in O.S.No.75/2004) filed appeal before the first appellate court and by the impugned common judgment, learned Subordinate Judge dismissed both appeals. 8. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against him, defendant approaches this Court 9. Notice was issued to the respondent in both appeals and Adv.M.P.Ramnath on behalf of the respondent in both appeals Lower court records were called for and both sides were heard. R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 10 10. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, the suit has been filed for arrears of rent and also for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule building and both the courts found concurrently that the tenancy arrangement was failed to be proved by the plaintiff. Thereafter finding that defendant is in permissive possession of the plaint schedule building and permission was withdrawn, recovery of possession was ordered, which according to him, is quite illegal and improper. It is his contention that he had filed O.S.No.75/2004 for declaring his title on the ground that he has perfected his right by adverse possession and thereby to declare that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and building. Though that suit was concurrently dismissed by the courts below, it is not a ground to decree the suit filed by the plaintiff since a cloud has been created on the title of the plaintiff and without a prayer for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, the suit filed by the plaintiff ought to have been dismissed. It is also his contention that the weakness of R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 11 the case set up by the defendant is not a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. It is also contended that plaintiff ought to have specifically pleaded the relief of declaration as per Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is further contended that the court fee has been paid under Section 43(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 (for short 'Court Fees Act') but the court below ordered recovery of possession of the building without a claim for that relief by the plaintiff and paying court fee as per Section 25 of the Court Fees Act. So, that according to him, is also illegal and unsustainable. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, would contend that the defendant is none other than the brother of the plaintiff and the sale deed in his favour was executed by the mother in the year 1986 and the defendant was conducting a Homoeo dispensary in the plaint schedule property with the consent of the mother and it has been admitted by the defendant during evidence that he is occupying the building with the permission of the mother and execution of the sale deed in his R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 12 favour by the mother is well within the notice of the defendant and though the courts below found that plaintiff could not establish the payment of rent by the defendant it is further found that the defendant is in permissive occupation of the building and consequently that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant is a tenant under him. It is also found that the suit filed by the defendant for declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession was found against him. Hence, according to the learned counsel, though the plaintiff was giving a higher status to the defendant as that of a tenant and the courts below found that there is no tenancy arrangement and further found his occupation as permissive and once notice is issued terminating the tenancy, the permission granted for occupation is withdrawn and the owner of the property is entitled for eviction. It is also his contention that once the occupation is found to be permissive in nature, the right of the defendant would be that of a licencee and for evicting him, the plaintiff need only file a suit for mandatory injunction for which only fixed court fee of Rs.20/- R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 13 ought to have been paid. But, in the present case, the plaintiff paid court fee of Rs.480/- under Section 43(2) of the Court fees Act and hence the suit is not undervalued for fiscal purposes also and at any cost, there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 12. The suit filed by the defendant seeking for declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession admittedly has been dismissed. He would contend that his long continuous possession of the plaint schedule shop room has been proved through the documents produced from his side, that is building tax receipts, professional tax receipts, electricity bill, water supply bill which were marked as Exts.B5 to B25 relating from 1986 onwards. Ext.B1 is the homoeopathic registration certification dated 09.09.1977. Ext.B2 is the electoral card issued in the name of defendant and his wife dated 22.09.1986 with respect to petition schedule building. Ext.B3 dated 14.12.1981 is the certificate issued by the President of Panchayat certifying that in the petition schedule building, a homoeo clinic in the name and style R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 14 'Prakash Homoeo Clinic' is being conducting by the defendant for the last three years. Ext.B3 is another certificate dated 17.12.1981 issued by the Panchayat President certifying that Dr.B.Usha is working as additional doctor in Prakash Homoeo Clinic. It is to be noted that the fact that the defendant is conducting the homoeo clinic in the plaint schedule building is not in dispute. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant is conducting the homoeo clinic with the permission of the mother and after the mother sold the property to him, on 17.12.1995, rent was enhanced to Rs.500/- and that rent was kept in arrears from 2001 onwards. It is true that tenancy arrangement could not be proved by the plaintiff and it has been concurrently found that there is no evidence to prove that defendant had paid any rent or is occupying the building as a tenant. But, the courts below found that once the notice terminating the tenancy has been issued and received by the defendant, the occupation of the building by the defendant is as trespasser according to the learned Munsiff. First appellate court also found that since the R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 15 tenancy arrangements could not be proved and it is further found by scanning the evidence adduced from either side that the occupation of the premises by the defendant is permissive in nature, the defendant as DW1 categorically admitted during cross-examination that it is with the permission of the mother that he started homoeo dispensary in the petition schedule building. He also admitted that during 1980 he had been residing in the family house along with the mother and four siblings. Ext.A1 sale deed is of the year 1986. It has been stated by him that during 1986 he was not residing in the family house. In the plaint in O.S.No.75/2004, there is specific allegation that he has perfected title with respect to plaint schedule property by adverse possession and even if the mother has title over the schedule property and building, it has been extinguished by adverse possession of the plaintiff. So, plaintiff was claiming title by adverse possession in the plaint. But when he admits during evidence that he started business in the homoeo dispensary in the plaint schedule property with the permission of the mother, R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 16 the question of adverse possession disappears. Subsequently, in the year 1986, the mother sold the property to the plaintiff and the specific case of the plaintiff is that he obtained the plaint schedule property with building as per Ext.A1 sale deed from the mother which is executed in consideration of supply of gold ornaments by him for the conduct of marriage of his sister and ever since the execution of the document, he is the title holder in possession of the property. Ext.A2 is the tax receipt dated 09.12.2000 issued from the Village office to prove that mutation was effected and he is paying property tax and Ext.A3 is the building tax receipt dated 10.12.2003 issued in his favour. Once the property has been sold by the mother to the plaintiff, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of the mother and became the title holder and once the defendant admits the occupation of the building with the permission of the mother, that status continues even if the property has been sold to the plaintiff in the year 1986. So, rightly the courts below have concurrently found against the claim of the defendant regarding adverse possession. R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 17 No interference is called for in that concurrent finding. 13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that even though his claim of adverse possession is found against, the weakness of his case cannot be taken as a ground to allow the suit filed by the plaintiff which is for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and on termination of tenancy as per a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which is found against by the courts below. Learned counsel in this context placed reliance on **Union of India and Others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others : (2014) 2 SCC 269** . According to him, since the claim of tenancy has been found against and eviction has been sought by the plaintiff in his capacity as a building tenant which is found against the recovery possession ordered by the courts below is legally unsustainable. He would content that in order to evict him from the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration and for recovery possession based on title. R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 18 14. The courts below though found concurrently against the landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, it has been found that since notice has been issued terminating the tenancy, according to the trial court, his occupation is unauthorised and since the plaintiff proved title he is entitled to get recovery possession of the building. First appellate court found the occupation of the defendant as permissive and it never matured into adverse possession and limitation and a permissive possession for a longer period will not confer any form of right and title. So, the issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filing of O.S.No.57/2004 would prove that permission is recalled and the only course open is to order eviction and accordingly the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. 15. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, since the claim of tenancy was found against and the suit was filed for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, without a prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 19 strength of title, the courts below ought not have decreed the suit ordering recovery of possession of the property in favour of plaintiff. In this context, learned counsel relies on **Anil Kumar v. Ajith : 2012 (4) KLT 545 : 2012 (4) KLJ 264 : 2012 (4)** **KHC 546** wherein it has been held that every pleading shall be stated specifically in the plaint as per Order VII Rule 7 of the Code. But it is also specifically held therein that the power of the court to grant just and proper relief to a party without his asking is also recognised by the second part of Order VII Rule 7. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in this context relies on **U.P.State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. v. Udai Narain Pandey : (2006) SCC (LS) 250 : MANU/SC/2321/2005** in the aspect of Order VII Rule 7 wherein it has been held that Order VII Rule 7 of the Code confers power upon the court to mould relief in a given situation. **Pralhad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : (2010) 10 SCC 458 : MANU/SC/0704/2010** wherein it has been held that appellate court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 20 ought to have been passed or make such further decree or orders as case may require while along with the powers of the appellate court under Order 31 Rule 33. 17. Learned counsel also relies on **Thomas v. Philip : 2022 (4) KLT 213** wherein while dealing with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act it has been held that a relief of declaration of title to immovable property is implicit in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property based on title inasmuch as without establishing title to the property, no decree for the relief of possession can be passed. Even in paragraph 17 of that decision, it has been categorically held by the Court that, merely because a plaintiff did not specifically claim the relief of declaration of title, he cannot be denied the relief of possession and hence it was found that the contention of the defendant in that case that a suit for recovery possession will not lie without relief of declaration, is not sustainable. So, I do not think that the proposition of law laid down therein would in any way support the contention of the defendant. R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 21 18. It is in this context, learned counsel for the plaintiff drew my attention to **Biswanath Agarwalla vs Sabitri Bera : 2009 KHC 6152 : (2009) 15 SCC 693** . In that decision, while dealing with a case for recovery possession, plaintiff proved title and defendant could not prove the agreement for sale and High Court formulated the points in the form of question (1) Have the plaintiffs landlord and tenant relationship with the defendant? (2) Have the plaintiffs served valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act? And the question whether a suit for recovery possession is maintainable in the above situation and it was found that the landlord in a given case although may not be able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant but in the event he proves his general title, may obtain a decree on the basis thereof. But, in a case of that nature, defendant is entitled to raise a contention that he had acquired an indefeasible title by adverse possession. **Radha Devi and Others v. Ajay Kumar Sinha : 1998 (2) BLJR 1061** was quoted wherein the Patna High Court accepted that a R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 22 landlord is entitled to get a decree of eviction on the basis of general title though he could not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant and it was opined as follows: _"...In other words, where there is relationship of landlord and tenant, order of eviction be passed on the existence of any one of the grounds mentioned in Section 11 of the said Act. It is, therefore, clear that proof of relationship of landlord and tenant gives right to a landlord to get an order of eviction under the provisions of the aforesaid Act..."_ _In Champa Lal Sharma v. Smt.Sunita Maitra [(1990) 1 BLJR 268], it was held:_ _"It is also well settled that one such relationship is admitted or established, tenant would be estopped and precluded from challenging the title of the landlord and if he does so, under the general rule, make himself liable for eviction on that ground._ _It, therefore, logically follows that a finding of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is a sine qua non for passing a decree for eviction against a tenant except in a case, as mentioned hereinbefore the plaintiff on payment of ad valorem_ R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 23 _Court fee may obtain a decree for eviction on the basis of his general title."_ ## 19. **Sabbir Khan (Deceased) through LRs and Others** ## **v. Sher Mohmmad and Others : AIR 2020 MP 30 : 2020** **KHC 2367** was relied on by the learned counsel to contend that a claim of adverse possession would lie even against father. In that decision, plaintiff filed suit against his own father claiming title by adverse possession. In that context, it was held that possession of plaintiffs becomes adverse possession when it was within the knowledge of his father but never objected by him and father never disputed possession of plaintiff for more than 12 years and father admitted the plaintiff as actual owner and in exclusive possession of suit property. In the said circumstances, granting of decree in favour of the plaintiff's son was held to be proper. But it is to be noted that in the present case, plaintiff even categorically admit during his examination that he started occupying the building as permitted by the mother. Mother subsequently executed Ext.A1 sale deed in favour of plaintiff. R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 24 When the mother executed Ext.A1 in favour of plaintiff her intention is explicit. So, the above decision cited has no application to the case in hand. ## 20. **Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji v. Namboodiyil** **Vinodan : 2021 (5) KHC 430 SC** was relied on by the counsel. In that decision, while dealing with Sections 36 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the maintainability of a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title has been dealt with by the Apex Court and in paragraph 11, **Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and Others** _**:**_ **2008 (4) SCC 594 : 2008 (3) KLT SN 30** has been quoted and found that where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, suit for injunction would be decided with reference to finding of possession. If the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. The above decision has no application to the R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 25 case in hand. Because the suit is filed for arrears of rent as well as for recovery possession and the plaintiff established his title over the property and though the defendant contended perfection of title by adverse possession and limitation, it was concurrently found against the defendant and defendant could not create any cloud regarding the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. 21. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff by paying court fee under Section 25 of the Court Fee Act for seeking relief under title. But court fee paid is only under Section 43(2) of the Act. So, for granting a relief of recovery possession, according to the learned counsel, suit has not been valued properly and proper court fee also has not been paid. It has already been found that a suit for declaration is not at all necessary since the plaintiff is the title holder of the property. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the relief of recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule premises for Rs.6,000/-, R.S.A.Nos.446/2022 & 470/2022 26 that is taking into account the rent payable for the next year and paid a court fee of Rs.480/- under Section 43(2) of the Act. 22. Since the possession of the defendant is found to be a permissive user, suit for mandatory injunction alone would have been necessary for evicting the defendant. So, court fee paid by the plaintiff already is sufficient for the relief granted. 23. So, in the present case, though the plaintiff put forward a claim of landlord tenant relationship between himself and the defendant that was found against. But his general title with respect to plaint schedule property stands in tact. So, recovery possession ordered by the courts below on the basis of his general title is strictly in accordance with law. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgments and decree passed by the courts below. In the result, appeals are found to be devoid of any merit and hence are dismissed. (Sd/-) **M.R.ANITHA, JUDGE** jsr _True Copy_ _P.S to Judge_