ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢PÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ

,
vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ
Cgï.Cgï.n.(C).(UÀÄ) 181/2004-05

ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ
ZÀ£Àߧ¸ÀªÀAiÀÄå

«

JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ
PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀÄ

ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ®PÀë÷äªÀÄä PÉÆÃA ¯ÉÃmï gÉêÀtÚ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸À°è¹zÀ °TvÀ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ:-

1. gÀ°è£À

UÀÄ©â vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¤lÆÖgÀÄ ºÉÆç½ CAPÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 19/9 d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®vÀB UÉÆêÀiÁ¼À d«ÄãÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ

¸ÀAUÀwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄaÑgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

2.

¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß f.JA.J¥sï 7/1956-57 gÀAvÉ 3£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀªÀw ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄAdÆjAiÀiÁzÀzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ PÉêÀ® µÀgÀvÀÄÛ gÉêÀtÚ §zÀÝ ©£ï

¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÀ

ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

gÉêÀtÚ¹zÀÝ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæªÀ®èzÉ CzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ J®èjUÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸ÀAUÀwAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉüÀzÉ «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄaÑgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

3.

¸ÀzÀj ¨sÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄÄ 15 ªÀµÀð ¥ÀgÀ¨ÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀzÀAvÉ £À£Àß ¥ÀªÀw ¥ÀwAiÀÄ

ºÉ¸Àj£À°è £ÀªÀÄä C«¨sÀPÀÛ PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ d«ÄãÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 15 ªÀµÀð ¥ÀgÀ¨ÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀzÀAvÉ «¢¹gÀĪÀ µÀgÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ¥ÀªÀw ¥ÀwAiÀÄÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj ºÁUÉÆAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸Àȶ×AiÀiÁVzÀÝgÉ CzÀÄ £ÁªÀiÁ̪À¸ÉÛ ¥ÀvÀæªÁVzÀÄÝ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀgÀ¨ÁgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨sÁ»gÀªÀÇ C®èzÉ £ÀªÀÄä EvÀgÉ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀjUÉ ¢PÀÄÌ vÀ¦à¸À®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. Sub-rule 6(a)(i) of Rule 43(1)
of the Land Revenue Rules 1888 which governed the grant of land in question prohibits the alienation of the land for a period of 15 years from the date of the grant and since the land in question was said within 15 years

from the date of the grant apart from the prohibition contained in the order of grant that the land in question should not be alienated.

4.

ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæ¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30-05-1966 gÀ°è PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸Áé¢üãÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV ¨sÁ»gÀ CA±ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ,

DVzÉ JAzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃT¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ w½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¥ÀºÀt PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ

£ÉÆAzÁªÀtÂ

PÉÊvÀ¦àgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ

C¸ÀA§ªÀ¤ÃAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

5.

PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ Cfð

EzÀÝgÀÆ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ JA.Dgï. 4/2004-05 CAVÃPÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀĽî¤AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

6.

ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ°è vÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ªÉÄîä£À« PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«

¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ vÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ªÁådå PÁgÀt ¸ÀĽî¤AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½UÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼À C£ÀĸÁgÀªÁV ªÉÄïÁä£À« wgÀ¸ÁÌgÀPÉÌ AiÉÆÃUÀåªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

7.

AiÀiÁªÉǧ⠪ÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄîä£À« ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ ªÁådå

PÁgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄÆ® ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaÑqÀzÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ w½¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. CAvÀºÀ ªÀÄÄZÀÄÑ«PÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÉÆøÀªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ C®è £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÀÆÌ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ JAzÀÄ ±ÉæõÀ× £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wæð£À ¹zÁÝAvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. In Arunima Baruah vs
Union of India & Ors 2007 (6) scc 120 “It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis

between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands.”

8.

£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ ¥ÁnðUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÆøÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀÄÄaÑqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, vÀ¥ÀÅöà «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ

«ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß

ªÉÆøÀªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸À®èzÀÄ JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀĦæêÀiï PÉÆÃmïð F PɼÀPÀAqÀ PÉù£À°è «¸ÁÛgÀªÁV »ÃUÉ ºÉýzÉ CzÀgÀ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ F PɼÀUÉ G¯ÉèÃT¹zÉ. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of
Hon’ble court the observations of Supreme court in THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER V. T.SURYACHANDRA RAO, (2006) 1 LW 547 at pg.551 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: " "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio.

9.

£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ §gÀÄ ªÁådåPÁgÀ£ÀÄ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaÑqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ

JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ¸ÀĦæêÀiï PÉÆÃnð£À wæð£À CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court
the observations of Supreme court in S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU V. JAGANNATH AND OTHERS, AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 853, wherein it is held as follows:- 'The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. It can

be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.'

10.

zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå

±ÉæõÀ× £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wæð£À ¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¹zÉ.
Observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mahomed Haji latif and Ors. (1968) 3 S.C.R.: Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withhold important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof.

11.

zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ

d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ°è£À

µÀævÀÄÛ G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁr

ªÀiÁrgÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀgÁgÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÀÅ C®èzÉ zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁ£ÀƤ£À «ÄÃjzÀÝ®è JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä It is kindly brought to the kind
attention of Hon’ble court the observations of Laxmiamma v State o/ Karnataka and Others, AIR 1983 Kant. 237. Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, or the rule against perpetuities do not apply to Government grants. Hence, a condition prohibiting alienation for ever or a permanent restraint on alienation of granted lands if authorised by law regulating such grants, is not void but a valid condition.

12.

AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ

RjâzÁgÀ£ÀÄ

dǀ̣ˀ

Rj̢Aiˀ

ªÀÄÄ£Àß

eÁUÀævÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

ªÀ»¸À¨ÉÃQgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. eÁUÀævÉ ªÀ»¸ÀzÀªÀ¤UÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ gÀPÀëuÉ ¹UÀ¯ÁgÀzÀÄ. It is kindly
brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court the observations of Mallappa Adiveppa Hadapad v Smt. Rudrawa and Others, ILR 2003 KAR 1774. Where transferee has not made enquiries into title of transferor and has merely acted upon such entry in land revenue record, which is not evidence of title,

he cannot be said to have taken reasonable care or acted in good faith to claim protection of provision against dispossession by real owner of property.

13.

PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ ¤dªÉà DVzÀÝ°è PÁ£ÀƤ£À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ CzÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉUÉ £ÀAvÉ gÀªÁ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, CzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨sÁ»gÀvɬÄAzÀ CAzÉÃ

eÉ.¹è¥ï

wgÀ¸ÁÌgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÀºÀ wgÀ¸ÀÌöÈvÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ²ß¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. FUÀ ¥ÀªÀw ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ §zÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¸À®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. C°èAzÀ E°èªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀĪÀÄä¤zÀÄÝ FUÀ ªÀÄÄAzÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁR¯É ¸Àȶ׹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of
Hon’ble court the observations of Seshumull M. Shah v Sayed Abdul Rashid & Others, ILR 1991 Kar. 2857, AIR 1991 Kant 273, 1991 (1) KarLJ 320 If a person creates false documents in his own favour without the knowledge of the real owner, that cannot by any stretch of logic be construed as having been done with the express -or implied consent of the real owner.

14.

F PÉù£À°è ªÁådå ¥ÁægÀA§zÀ vÁjÃR£ÀÄß ¸ÀļÀÄî £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1966 gÀ°è

wgÀ¸ÀÌöÈvÀ UÉÆArgÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ JA.Dgï ¥Àæ²ß¸ÀzÉ FUÀ ¥ÀªÀw ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ §A¢gÀĪÀ JA.Dgï ¥Àæ²ß¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. It is kindly brought to the
kind attention of Hon’ble court the observations of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram [1992 Supp. (2) SCC 623 where this Court observed as follows : "The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a `cautious cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief."

15.

It is kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court the

observations of Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar Vs. Ramaratan Bapu & Ors (2004) 7 SCC 181"material facts" are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or defendant's defence depends. Broadly speaking, all primary or

basic facts which are necessary either to prove the cause of action by the plaintiff or defence by the defendant are "material facts". Material facts are facts which, if established, would give the petitioner the relief asked for. But again, what could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down.

16.

It is kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court the

observations of M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr [(2004) 6 SCC 254] The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitutes the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.”

17.

F PÉù£À ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ£À £ÀqÀªÀ½PɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀéµÀÖªÁUÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ,

zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ d«Ää£À PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ªÀåxÀð ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀߪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀߪÁVzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ eÁjªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊ©lÄÖ AiÀÄxÁ ¹Üw ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¢zÉ. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble
court the observations of Tulsa v. Durghatiya [(2008) 4 SCC 520], this court held: "11. At this juncture reference may be made to Section 114 of the

Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). The provision refers to common course of natural events, human conduct and private business. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have occurred. Reading the provisions of Sections 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act together, it is clear that the act of marriage can be presumed from the common course of natural events and the conduct of parties as they are borne out by the facts of a particular case.

18.

FUÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ ¥ÁægÀA§¢AzÀ¯Éà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨sÁ»gÀªÉÇà CAvÀºÀzÀÝ£ÀÄß eÁj

ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÁådå PÁgÀt ºÀÄqÀÄQPÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ. It is kindly brought to the kind
attention of Hon’ble court the observations of C. Albert Morris Vs. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228, Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. In Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by LRs. Vs. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by LRs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non-est and have to be necessarily set aside.

19.

PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨sÁ»gÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è vÀgÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. It is

kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court the observations of Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim (2001) 5 SCC 629 Where a party's claim is not founded on valid grounds, the party cannot claim equity. A party that claims equity must come before the court with clean hands as equities have to be properly worked out between parties to ensure that no one is allowed to have their pound of flesh vis-`-vis the others unjustly.

¸ÀzÀj

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ

CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß

¥ÀjUÀt£ÉUÉ

vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ

¸ÀzÀj

¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß

ªÀeÁUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ: 04-10-2010 ¸ÀܼÀ: vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ

3 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢

3 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.