 Good evening, one and all. And as we have seen that we have requested time and again, Justice Sunil Thomas, to share his knowledge. And his passion to share the knowledge is so deep rooted that he will say that the topics which he has done in the judicial academy or in different colleges, he would like to take something different. Therefore, on a lot of discussions, we thought that there's always a debate as to whether the legal hears, legal representatives or nominees, continue to remain the same or there is a several differences between them. Because we had repeatedly been having requests that kindly share the knowledge on this aspect. And we thought that it was the Justice Sunil Thomas who could be the first person to share his knowledge. Amongst us, I was just seeing that Mr. Premraj was also there. Somehow he's not there. No, he's logged in. I'll ask Mr. Prem to just give his introduction being from the same place. He knows that Justice Sunil Thomas is epitome of knowledge. Over to you, Prem. Good evening, sir. And good evening all. Actually, I am caught off the guard. I just wanted to hear this priceless lecture, which gives us very, very interesting topic. And then the primary blush, it would appear. It is a very small insignificant topic. But it is not an ordinary round. Well, first dealing with the topic, I would say that not merely the laymen, even the lawyers and judges seem to get confused and seem to entertain a feeling that the terms legal is and legal representative, they are interchangeable. Now, as Justice Sunil Thomas may point, the Kerala High Court, I think it's a month back, someone in the last week of January, 2023, an official memorandum was issued. And the subject was the implementation of a universal procedure in implementing the legal areas of the deceased parties in the dedications, implementing the legal areas. That was the subject. I have seen it, I don't have it right now. And in CPC, we have the rules that we have in 2022, which extensively deal with the implementation of legal representatives, either of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased dependent. Rules three and four of our 22 to be very precise, one is rule four A, of course deals with that situation when there are no legal representatives. And we have a rule five, we're going to find this is a rule which is fully dedicated to the determination as to whether any person is or not the legal representative, either of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased dependent. And this rule interestingly contains the proviso which is during the 1976 amendment. But if such a question arises before an actual court, then that court, before returning the question, can directly support the court to try the question and to return the response together with the evidence, what is recommended at such trial and finding some reasons thereof. And the actual court can take the same into consideration. So we can see the CPC deals with legal representatives and this is the particular term which you see defined in section two cost level, which means that a person who is in a state of a deceased person and the court, it includes any person who can implement it with their feet. And of course I should have mentioned one more rule, rule 22, which deals with the situation where some property lies during the process of hearing and the provosement of judgment. Every person's situation, the subject of which we find in rule six. And of course, I have a civilian court that said long ago, I think it is 1965. Briaraband versus Shyam Sundari, thinks 1965 judgment was re-judged bench, which helped the implanted legal representatives that sufficiently represent the state of the deceased and the decision obtained with them on the court, it would blame not only those implanted, but the entire state, including those who were not brought from the court. Anyone who was implanted, carried for the purpose of that suit, you know. And of course, occasion to both the judgment of the Punjab and Hyderabad court, moving to the court's judgment. It's AR-1981, Punjab and Hyderabad, page 133, which are beautifully, which are distinguished distinct. That of course, was a case concerned about 2125, and it held that the legal representative was appointed for an hourly contact of the suit. And such a decision, it cannot take away for all the times to come. The rights of the rightful lay of the deceased, in all matters, and concept of a legal representative, act of a deceased party, they are extremely and entirely different. So as to constitute one as an illa, it is unnecessary that he should have a beneficial interest in the state, just like we see the ex-situators and the administrators, or they're all legal representatives, and they may have no beneficial interest. So whether it's a trespasser, for trespassers with the property of a deceased, for claims tightly ensured, independent of the right of the deceased, he can be a legal representative. On the other hand, the heirs or who, the beneficial interest devolved under the law, whether staturopally or otherwise, the legal representative is a staturopally legal representative. And of course, there are other decisions, like Janani was a Sakya Sai, Senor, Test and others, which Justice Sunil Parmas would be dealing in dinting. And of course, what to do is nominate. As the president suggests, the nominate has no directly interest. So as we enable the heirs or the in-laws of a deceased, not need to confine that being. Now, coming to the speaker of the day, I need to tell you much about Justice Sunil Parmas. Insofar as I know, this is a judge here, you have a judge who has an extensive knowledge of laws. An extremely dignified, gracious and crotious judge and off the bench with an impeccable integrity. And the finest part of Justice Sunil Parmas is that, what's the value of what you've ever seen, Justice Sunil Parmas losing his cool temper and smile. So I don't understand the way of the audience and the speaker anymore. So over to you, sir. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for the kind words that you have spoken about me. And this is Vigas also. Virtually I should thank Mr. Vigas for giving me this opportunity. Secondly, the topic was suggested in fact by Mr. Vigas. He suggested, so why not we have a discussion on this topic? I know that probably it may appear to be very odd to say that is there any difference between legal aids and legal representatives? But it has got its own significance. So I should thank Mr. Vigas for suggesting this topic so that I could give an lecture on this. So what we are trying to discuss today is, who is a legal representative? Who is a legal heir? And who is the nominee? Are these terms interchangeable? Or are they three different concepts? Do they overlap? Or can a legal representative be a legal heir also? Or vice versa? Like that. So we'll try to discuss on this topic today. So who is a legal heir? We'll start with that. Legal heir means, under the law, a person who succeeds to the estate of the deceased. As you all know, the succession can be by two methods. It can be by an application of law if he dies in the state. Or by the operation of his will if he has a testamentary death. So that a person who succeeded to the estate by the operation of law, or by the operation of act of parties who has left behind a will, such persons are denoted as heir. Or legal heirs because they acquire the right to the property by virtue of the law of succession or by the testamentary succession. And a legal heir acquires the entire right to the property to which he is entitled to as for the law of succession or as prescribed by the estate by the terms in his way. So that legal heir means a person who ultimately succeeded to the estate of the person by the operation of law of succession in the case of a testamentary, not interstate succession and in the case of a testamentary succession by the operation of his will. This is how we generally define. If you go through the statutes, you will never find this exact word being defined in any of the statutes. You may find the definition of a heir. But the term legal heir is something which you frequently use. And in certain case, I have seen as open to my producer that they are at times interchangeably used. So I can tell you that legal heir means he is a person who acquires right title and interest to the property by virtue of the law of succession. And law of succession may be different for each person. They are depending on the personal laws or the other general law applicable to the parties. If you go to the Hindu Success Act, section 33 of the Hindu Success Act deals with the definition of a heir. Under the section 33 of the Hindu Success Act, a heir is defined as a person, male or female, entitled to succeed to the state of the property of an interstate under the Act. Indian Success Act does not specifically define what is spent by a legal heir. It only says, it only refers to the various persons who are entitled to succeed to the state by the terms legal descendants, spouse, kindreds, et cetera, as hares. Under the Muslim law of succession, hares are broadly divided as sharers or residuals. So these are the broad categories. So you will have to unmute yourself. Sir, just hold on. You're not audible. You have muted yourself. Legal representative is a person. Sir, you will have to repeat last two sentences. You have missed it out. Is that an interruption, Mr. No, you have muted yourself. Last two sentences, you would have to repeat it. No, it's fine. Is it okay? Yeah. Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, sir. Yes. And section 211 of the CPC defines a legal representative. If you go through the definition, you will find that it has got three categories of persons. One is a person in law. Under section 211 of the CPC, legal representative is defined as a person who in law represents the estates or estate of a deceased. The second category is a person who intermiddles with the estate of a deceased. Third situation refers to a case where a person is sued or sued again, sued or has sued against, is sued against. Dice. And the persons on whom the property devolves, they also come under the definition of the legal representatives. So virtually, section 211 of CPC takes in three categories of persons. I will repeat by saying that the first categories are those, a category is those persons who in law represents the estate of the deceased. The second category is those persons who intermiddles with the property, estate of the deceased. Third is a case where one person who is sued or is sued against, has sued or sued against, dies. And those persons on whom the estate of the property devolves. So these three categories come under the definition of legal representatives. As for under the CPC, if you refer to this definition of legal representative, I will tell you once again, that the term used in the CPC is not legal there, but the legal representatives. There is a reason for that. We will come to know more why the term used is legal representative when you discuss order 22. So the first thing that strikes your attention is, that the definition is a very broad one and an inclusive one also. So when the first category of person which includes, those persons on whom the estate devolves, takes in those persons who by virtue of law, either by a testimony succession or by an interstate succession, become entitled to succinct to the estate of the person as legal areas. The definition does not stop there. Definition goes a bit further and says that it includes, it's an inclusive definition. It says that it includes those persons who inter-model with the property. Now this is a term which has created a slight confusion in the minds of people as if anybody who transfers into the property, there is also a person who inter-models with the property. So that he has got some right over the property or he can also be proved as a legal representative. You should not be under the impression that the term inter-models used in section in the definition clause conveys a negative meaning that anybody and everybody who transfers into the property or even rank transfers will fall within the definition of a legal representative as defined under section 211 of the CPC. An inter-person, inter-models means a person who has some element of right, either possessory in nature or in any other legal manner. So it does not convey a negative meaning. Then the third category relates to a case, worried. A person who is, who has died, is either has sued or was sued against in the legislative capacity, all those persons on whom his state devolves would fall within the definition of a legal representative. So that's why I said that the definition of legal representative as provided by the CPC is brought inclusive and it takes in persons other than the legal heirs also. So that legal heirs includes all those persons who are legal heirs, who hold the property, who acquire the property or who are entitled to succeed to the property and includes certain other categories of persons in certain situations. Now, the scope of this section has to be considered by the Supreme Court in one decision which I have referred to that is in custodian of branches of Banco National Ultra Marino, custodian of branches of Banco National Ultra Marino versus Nalini by Nacui, Nalini by Nacui, N-A-I-Q-U-E. 1989 to S-E-R, age one zero, in that the Supreme Court was called upon to consider the scope of the definition of a legal representative as defined under the CPC. Supreme Court held that as I told you just now, the definition is a broad one. It's an inclusive one. It takes in a legal heirs also. It includes the legal heirs and also those persons who are entitled to succeed to the state and not to succeed to represent the state, though he may not have acquired right title or possession by virtue of law of succession or interstate succession. That's why we say that the definition of legal representative is a broader one, wider one and then inclusive one. This has been, this decision has been reiterated or this proposition has been reiterated in other decisions also. I'll give you two other decisions. One is in Chiranjit Lal versus Jasjit Singh. Chiranjit Lal, C-H-I-R-A-N-J-I-T-L-A-L versus Jasjit Singh, J-A-S-J-I-T, Jasjit Singh, 1993 to SCC 507. And the second decision is Suresh Kumar Benzal versus Krishna Benzal, 2010 to SCC 162. These decisions follow the same view and that is a consistent view also. In one case, that is in Andhra Bank limited versus R. Srinivasan and others. Andhra Bank limited versus R. Srinivasan and others. Citation is 1962 A.R. SC, 232. The question came up as to whether a person who acquires a minor or a fractional share in the property be considered as a legal representative in relation to the whole property, entire state of the property, entire state of the deceased. Supreme Court said such a person will also fall within the definition of legal representative as defined under the CPC. That was a law laid down by Supreme Court in Andhra Bank limited versus R. Srinivasan and others. Now there is one more class which refers to the term legal representative. That is on the section 50 of the CPC in relation to the legal representatives of a judgment that there. Section 50 of the CPC says that legal representative of a deceased judgment that there means a person who can sue, who can be sued for the purpose of executing the decree. In other words, legal representative of a judgment that there means a person against whom the decree can be pursued. So this is the distinction between a legal hair and a legal representative. Then the question comes, are all legal heirs legal representatives and are all legal representatives legal heirs? So if we go back to the definition of the legal representative as provided under the CPC, what you'll find is that the term legal representative includes legal heirs also. So what happens is that section, that's very clear from section 211 of the CPC. Section 211 says when it says that legal representatives include those persons who succeed to the state or who are persons in law, represents the state of the state means it includes a legal hair also, it expands further. So that ultimately what we can conclude is that legal heirs can also be considered as legal representatives as are also legal heirs as defined under the CPC. Since it is a broader one, since the definition of legal representatives as provided under the CPC is of a broader nature, all legal representatives need not be legal heirs. That's the particular feature of it. So that all legal representatives may not be the legal heirs, but all legal heirs are legal representatives also. This point has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in, I will refer to three decisions on that point. Varadarajan versus Kanagavandi and others. Varadarajan versus Kanagavandi and others. AR 2020 SC740. AR 2020 SC740. AR 2020 SC740. And the other decision is which I referred to earlier, Suresh Kumar Bensal versus Krishna Bensal. Suresh Kumar Bensal, I referred to earlier. Suresh Kumar Bensal versus Krishna Bensal. 2010, 2 SCC 162. And the third decision is a slightly older decision. Jaladi Suguna. Jaladi J-A-L-A-D-I. Jaladi Suguna, S-U-G-U-N-A. Vilsa Sathya Sai, Central Trust. Jaladi Suguna, Vilsa Sathya Sai, Central Trust and others. 2008, 8 SCC 521. Now, in a slightly different context. This wide definition of legal representatives came up before the Supreme Court recently. In a different context. I'll tell you that that was a decision. Under the Motor Registration Act, the interesting question was, can a mother-in-law who had been living or who has lived with the deceased can be considered as a legal representative under the Motor Registration Act? This decision is in NJ3 and others. NJ3 and others versus Chawla Mantalam M.S. General Insurance Company. NJ3 and others versus Chawla Mantalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited. I could not get the citation as it, but I'll give you the civil appeal number. Civil appeal 6451 of 2021. The Supreme Court held. It is Abdul Mazir held that though the scope of Section 166D of the Motor Registration Act, which enables a legal representative to be brought under a court, does not specifically prescribe a mother-in-law on a broader perspective. She can also be considered as a legal representative of the deceased for the purpose of representing in the proceeding and also while considering the question whether compensation is able to be paid out or not. So this is a broad distinction between the difference between these two concepts of legal areas and legal representatives. The most important provision which refers to the legal representatives and the impact of legal representatives comes in civil service. Order 22, rule 3, 4 and 5 of the three provisions which provide for bringing on record the legal areas of a deceased plaintiff or the deceased defendant. Section, order 22, rule 3 and 4 refers to how it has to be, they can be brought on record, who are the persons that tend to be brought on record, etc. Rule 5 says that whenever a question has to, who should, who is entitled to represent, to be the legal representative arises. That court itself shall consider the question and decide whether the person who comes on record or is sought to be brought on record is entitled to represent the suit, represent the deceased. Now we will consider what is the scope of order 22, rule 5. Order 22, rule 5, the range enables the court before which the matter is pending to decide whether a person who comes on record or proposed to come on record or is sought to be brought on record is entitled to represent the state of the deceased and satisfies the definition under section 2, 11 of the CPC. That court itself can consider the question. That court itself can consider the question whether he is entitled to represent the state of the person and to continue the legal proceedings before the court. The first important aspect of that question is that it is summary nature. Summary nature in the sense that no detailed enquiry is conducted but the court makes a comprehensive enquiry and if it is satisfied that the person who is sought to be brought on record is competent to represent the deceased in the proceedings. He can be permitted to be brought on record and continue the proceedings. So that enquiry as contemplated under order 22, rule 5 is a summary procedure. Then one question comes. If one person, that enquiry concludes it a determination that this person is competent to represent the deceased in the proceedings is it a conclusive determination on the question of legal aids. This was considered by the Supreme Court in Jeladi-Sugunas case which I just now referred to. In Jeladi-Sugunas case the Supreme Court had was called upon to consider the question. Once a determination is done by the court on the question as to whether the person who is sought to be brought on record or to be recorded as the legal representative is entitled to proceed to continue with the suit is entitled to proceed with the suit will that amount to a determination of the question of legal leadership. In Jeladi-Sugunas case the court said it will not but it will be conclusive so far as that question whether he is entitled to continue the proceeding before that court but not the question whether on the question of legal aids. And the court also said as long as the court decides on the question whether this person is competent to proceed with the adjudication or till he is permitted to continue the proceeding bring on to be brought on record as the legal representative and permitted to continue with the proceedings he has no right to participate right for adjudication until such question is is decided and the determination of the court as to who is the determination by the court as to who is the legal representative under order 22 rule 5 will be for the limited purpose of representation of the deceased person in that suit that is the scope of a inquiry under order 22 rule 5. The first thing I said this is a summary in nature second thing is that it is of a limited consequence a limited input and that decision permitting him for the purpose of the person he is only to represent the deceased in the further stages of the suit this question came up before the the scope of that came up before another decision that is before the Rajasthan High Court in Kalu Ram Kalu Ram versus Charan Singh AR 1994 Rajasthan 31 AR 1994 Rajasthan 31 that was a case where the affluent died and Kalu Ram sought himself to be brought under court as the legal representative his claim was on the basis of a will executed by the deceased person there was an objection regarding his right to continue as as the legal representative the ground was that there was suspicion regarding the execution of the will which was relied on by Kalu Ram the Rajasthan High Court said the question we are not going into the question of legality and correctness of the genuineness of the will we are only confining ourselves to the question whether he has he can be permitted to continue the proceedings at least on the strength of a will the courts permitted him to continue the proceedings as the legal representative of the deceased so that the central proposition of law is that any determination on the question of legal representative under order 25 rule 5 will be for the limited purpose of deciding as to the person who is entitled to represent the deceased in the procedure nothing more this is help considered by the Supreme Court three other decisions one two other two decisions I already referred to one is Mahand Satyanand Mahand Satyanand MAHA and TH Satyanand versus Shyamlal Chauhan 2018 18 SCC 2018 Volume 18 SCC 485 as well as in Varadarajan's case which I referred to earlier and in Suresh Kumar's Bansal's case which I referred to so these three decisions consistently did down the principle that the adjudication under order 22 rule 5 on the question of legal representative is only for the limited purpose of determining whether that person is competent to continue with the proceedings nothing more than that so it is summary nature it does not determine the question of legal age then the third question that will arise in such a determined decision under order 22 rule 5 is whether that decision will act as will operate as resjudicator in relation to other decisions because there is a decision by a pope of law on the question whether he is entitled to represent the to be entitled to represent the state will that determination operate as resjudicator this question was again considered by the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Bansal's case which I referred to earlier what the Supreme Court held was that it is a well settled principle that the determination regarding the question of legal representative under order 25 rule 5 CTC will not operate as resjudicator in relation to any other further proceedings because this determination is only the sole purpose of deciding whether he is competent to continue with the legal proceedings only for that purpose whether his presence in the proceeding will enable the proper adjudication of the dispute which is involved in that list now this decision or this consistent view that decision rendered under order 22 rule 5 will not operate as resjudicator has got its own valid reasons also the first reasoning is that that question of legal representative is not the main issue involved in that issue it is an incident issue that has arisen consequent to the death of a party to the list so that the decision under order 25 rule 5 cannot operate as resjudicator for the simple reason that there is no determination by the court in so far as the issue involved between the parties is concerned secondly the legal representative without the very basic principle of legal representative the question of legal representative or a legal representative is a point under order 25 over 22 rule 5 only for the purpose of further contact of the litigation and such a decision such a determination cannot take away forever and for all times to come the question of question as to who is the legal heir these are two different issues by deciding the question as to whether the person who started with rata or raka as the legal representative of the deceased person will not preclude the legal heirs the genuine legal heirs from contesting the proceeding on the ground that they are the actual legal heirs by virtue of the law of succession or on the strength of the will excluded by the deceased person third reason for that is that such a determination is landed by the court or arrived at by the court on the basis of a summary for city conduct a summary inquiry conducted by the court and there is no appeal against that necessarily such a determination cannot operate as the investigator lastly the concept of legal heirs and legal representatives are totally different so a determination on the question of legal representative cannot operate as a investigator in so far as the question of legal heirs legal heirs is concerned so this is the reason why the Supreme Court has consistently helped that it will not operate as a investigator then one question as I said earlier will arise can a rank trespasser come forward and seek for a person in the state he cannot so broadly we can say the legal representatives include the legal heirs or any person who is entitled to represent the state of the deceased as executor administrator or a nominee or a person authorized by the deceased to continue the proceedings so such person also come within the persons also come within the definition of legal representatives now this aspect has been helped by the Supreme Court in Varadarajal's case which I referred to earlier and another decision of the Supreme Court that is in Deshrad Rao Kattay Deshrad DAS HRATH Deshrad Rao Kattay versus Prich Mohan Srivastava 2010 1 SCC 2007 2010 1 SCC 2007 so Varadarajal's case which I referred to earlier Deshrad Rao Kattay's case and there is one more decision of the Panjavan Hariyana ICO which has considered this the question as to why how or what are the reasons why the determination of legal representative will not operate as the executor that decision is in Mohindar Kaur and another versus Piyara Singh and others AR1981 Panjavan Hariyana 130 now one question that normally comes up is suppose some persons are permitted to represent the disease in a legal proceeding by worship of an order granted by order 22 rule 5 will that be binding on other legal representatives who are not brought on record or as seen in the situation wherein one legal representative is permitted to contest the proceedings will it bind the remaining legal representatives or legal representatives who are not brought on record it will subject to two conditions I will take you directly to that decision that is in Dayaram and others Dayaram BAYA Dayaram and others versus Shyam Sundari SHYAM Dayaram versus Shyam Sundari AR1965 SC 1049 Dayaram and others versus Shyam Sundari AR1965 SC 1049 what the supreme court held was that if after a bonafide inquiry the court permits one or more persons to be brought on record as the legal representatives that will bind all other legal representatives provided there was no pollution or soil so that a decision rendered by the by the court unenvoking all the 25 rule 5 permitting one or more legal representatives to be brought on record the decision rendered will bind ultimately all other legal representatives not understanding the fact that they are not being brought on record provided the court has conducted a bonafide and satisfying itself that these are competent persons who can be permitted to continue the proceedings and there is no fraud or pollution so virtually that means a decision rendered by the court on this question can be challenged by the other legal representatives who are genuinely affected on the ground that either the court did not conduct a proper inquiry bonafide inquiry or even a proper inquiry or that there was fraud and pollution between the parties either the legal representatives who are come on record and the other side or in between them intersect so as to defeat the interest of persons who are not brought on record still a challenge is possible but on the other hand if they are brought on record after a bonafide inquiry then it is that decision is biting off legal representatives who are even not brought on record this has also again been considered by the Supreme Court in one more decision NK Muhammad Suleiman versus Muhammad Ismail AR 1966 SC 792 AR 1966 SC 792 so these are the broad distributors features of legal heirs and legal representatives now we come to the question of nominee who is a nominee nominee is a person the concept of nominee is normally different concern nominee is a person who is nominated by the deceased to act on his behalf after his death to that extent the nominee can also be a legal representative suppose the nominee is appointed for the limited purpose of doing something on his behalf the nominee gets acquires right to the property he does not acquire the right to a property he gets the property and holds it in trust for the other so nominee is a person who is voluntarily nominated by a person to receive or administer the property upon his demise he does not acquire the right to the property any interest over the property position is only that of a trustee so the broad distinction between a nominee and a legal heir is there nominee is a person who is voluntarily nominated by the deceased to receive or administer a property over or immobile after his demise on the other hand legal heir is a person who is entitled to a property consequent to the demise of the deceased on the strength of love succession or on the strength of a will executed by him the second distinction between a nominee and legal heir is that nominee enjoys the property of the deceased person in the capacity as a trustee whereas a legal heir may acquire right, title and interest over the property position so these are the broad distinctions now what is the ultimate conclusion when we analyze all these three concepts they cannot we can strictly say that the term legal heir legal representative and nominee these three are three different concepts I can only also tell you a broad on a broader we can say legal heir legal heir and legal prostitutes they the right can be created in their favor by either by operation of law or by actor parties say for example if a person dies in the state by operation of law is the the persons who succeed to his estate we call them the legal heir internally when he executes the will the right convoy devolves upon them so it can be legal heir can be created either by actor parties or operation of law legal representative is also identical it can be created legal heir can be right can be conferred either by actor parties or by operation of law whereas nominee can be created nomination can be created only by the actor parties another broad distinction but I can tell you one more thing that the concept of legal legal representative may taken in appropriate cases a legal heir as well as a nominee a nominee can also be a legal representative a legal heir also fall within the definition of legal representative this is the broad distinction and they are these three are broad different concepts though it may overlap further ingredients may overlap one person can be a disease can nominate a person can give a property to one or to his legal heir by virtue of a will and nominate him to perform some of the right in relation to another property so that is why so that these words are not to be interchangeably used they are three different concepts in certain cases nominee and the legal heir may come fall within the definition of legal representative this is the broad conclusion that we are arriving at so thank you once again for giving me an opportunity any doubts on these topics that we have discussed we have Shyam also I will ask Shyam Shyam Patman I will just check it because on the group nobody has asked something anybody who can raise any question no I think you have sure elucidatedly explained that nobody has posted a question I have just received the message excellent session on the group as well as on the WhatsApp so thank you sir for sharing your knowledge and we will request you to share the judgments we will share it on the group the judgments which you have mentioned we will share it on the group the judgments which you have shared one says everybody is saying thank you so thank you sir for sharing your knowledge thank you