2013 C L C 1446
[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others ----Petitioners
Versus
BIBI ASIFA and others ----Respondents
Civil Revisions Nos.333 of 2002 and 91 of 2003, decided on 25th April, 2013.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---
----S. 42 ---Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.117 ---Suit for declaration ---Concurrent findings
of courts below ---Right of inheritance in legacy of deceased father ---Partition of the suit property
on the basis of execution of W ill---Registered Will of deceased ---Burden of proof ---Defendant
claimed that plaintiff had received his share in life time of deceased owner of the property on
basis of partition through execution of Will of deceased father ---Burden rested with the
defenda nt---Marginal witnesses of the Will were not produced ---No witness was produced in
whose presence the process of partition was held ---Sole witness of the occasion failed to confirm
the deed ---Signatures of the executants on the Will were not got verified ---Effect ---In absence of
specific evidence, and material, the purported will was not proved to the state of satisfaction ---
Fact of the partition and delivery of the possession of the respective shares was also not
established ---Judgment of the trial court d ecreeing the suit was upheld.
(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---
----S. 42 ---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(12) ---Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Art.117 ---Mesne profit ---Object ---Scope ---Onus of proof ---Criteria ---Both the parties being the
successors of deceased entitled to inherit the legacy left by him ---Plaintiffs claimed mesne profit -
--Onus was on the plaintiff to establish the fact that the property was in wrongful possession of
the defendants which made him entitled for mesne profit ---Only object of awarding of mesne
profit was to compensate a person entitled to be in possession of a property, but being kept out of
possession, thereby deprived from the profits arrived out of such property ---Person who was not
in wrongful possession of such property and was in possession of property as a co -sharer before
partition of the same, could not be made accountable for the profits earned during the period ---
While deciding the question thereby assessing mesne profit the person claiming was entitle d only
to the extent whatever the person in wrongful possession had collected from the property or the
amount which without wilful default he had received ---Some specific evidence was required
initially to establish that the person was in wrongful possessi on and secondly he had received the
profits arriving therefrom ---Plaintiff was not entitled for mesne profit in circumstances.
(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---
----S. 42 ---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(12) ---Possession of property by suc cessor ---
Mesne profit ---Claim of mesne profit by co -sharer of property ---Trial Court had refused to grant
the relief of mesne profit to plaintiff (co -sharer) ---Appellate Court reversed the findings of Trial
Court and granted mesne profit to the plaintiff ---Plaintiff alleged wrongful possession of
defendant ---Validity ---Both the parties being the successors of deceased were entitled to inherent
the legacy left by their father ---Utilization of left over property in possession of some of the legal
heirs of the deceased would not amount to be wrongful possession ---Possession of co -sharer of a
joint property in absence of proof of ouster or exclusion of other co -sharer could not be termed
as wrongful possession ---Person who was not in wrongful possession could no t be accountable
for the profits before partition of the property in question ---Plaintiff could not raise a claim for
mesne profit ---Judgment of the Appellate Court granting mesne profit to plaintiff was set aside.
Adnan Ejaz and Noor Khan Achakzai for Petitioners.
Mujeeb Ahmed Hashmi and Khushal Kasi for Respondents Nos.1 to 7.
Amanullah Baloch for Government.
Date of hearing: 20th November, 2012.
JUDGMENT
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. --- The petitioners through
Revision Petitions bearing No.333 of 2002 and No.91 of 2003, assailed the judgment dated 31st
August, 2002 of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, 1st Labour Court,
Quetta, and judgment dated 18th February, 2003 of Additional District Judge -1, Quetta, whereby
the appeals preferred by both the parties against the judgment dated 19th July, 2001 of the Senior
Civil Judge -I Quetta, were decided. As these petitions arising from the same judgment of the trial
Court, therefore, to avoid any conflict in the findings both the petitions are decided through this
common order.
2. In Civil Revision Petition No.333 of 2002 the petitioners Muhammad Rafiq and others
felt dissatisfied with a part of the order dated 31st August, 2002 of Additional District and
Sessions Judge/ Pre siding Officer, 1st Labour Court, Quetta, whereby the relief for grant of
mesne profit was allowed. The impugned order was questioned on the grounds that the appellate
court without giving them any opportunity of being heard decided the appeal, thereby dep rived
them of their right. Further, the evidence, and the material available on record was not properly
appreciated, which resulted in an erroneous decision. It was further agitated that in view of the
pendency of Civil Appeal No.27 of 2002 before Addition al District Judge -I, Quetta there was no
occasion for the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Presiding Officer, 1st Labour Court,
Quetta to pass a judgment in the matter, rather both the appeals were to be heard by one and the
same court. Further, the fact that an application for transfer of the case was already pending
before the court was ignored, and no decision was made thereon in time. A prayer was made for
setting aside of the impugned order or in alternate the impugned judgment be set aside, and the
case be transferred to the Additional District Judge -I, Quetta, with a direction to decide the same
afresh along with pending Appeal No.27 of 2001.
3. In Civil Revision Petition No.91 of 2003 the petitioners Muhammad Rafiq and ten others
questioned judgment dated 19th July, 2001 of Senior Civil Judge -I, Quetta, whereby the suit
filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 8 was decreed as prayed for, and the judgment/ decree dated
18th February 2003 of Additional District Judge -I, Quetta, whereby their (petitio ners') appeal
preferred against the order was dismissed. Both the judgments were questioned by raising
contention that the impugned judgments were passed in contravention of the facts and the law,
while the findings based on surmises and conjectures, there fore, not sustainable. Furthermore,
the material and the evidence before the courts below were not properly appreciated, and the
decision arrived was in contravention thereof. Further, the facts that the suit properties were
partitioned in the lifetime of Haji Pir Muhammad, and respondents Nos.1 to 8 got their
respective shares though duly established, in presence thereof no cause of action remained for
filing of the suit, but it was ignored. Further, the will dated 12th November, 1995 executed by
Haji Pir Muhammad was not properly appreciated, rather disbelieved despite the fact that it
(will) was a registered document, duly tendered by the representative of the Sub -Registrar,
Quetta, therefore, being a registered document the attesting witnesses thereof ne ed not to be
produced. But, the courts below failed to understand the law, thereby committed illegality.
Furthermore, the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on misappreciation and
misreading of the evidence, therefore, re -appraisal of the m atter was required by this court. It
was prayed that both the impugned judgments be set aside, and the suit filed by respondents
Nos.1 to 8 be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the parties placed their averments while jointly arguing both the
petitio ns. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the plaint was defectively drafted,
failed to describe the status of the legal heirs, and also the necessary details of the properties
against which the claim was made. Further, the personal law appli cable in the matter was not
disclosed, and in absence thereof no order could be made for determination of the shares of the
parties. The learned counsel further stated that non -production of one of the marginal witnesses
of the will was due to the fact tha t he died prior to filing of the suit. Being a registered document,
producing of its marginal witnesses was not necessary. The learned counsel referred to a criminal
case wherein one of the plaintiffs Abdul Wahid while recording his statement admitted the fact
of effecting of the partition between the parties in respect of the suit property, brought on record
as Exh.D/1 and Exh.D/2, thereby contended that these documents were required to be
considered, but ignored, thereby an error was committed. Furthermor e, the fact that in the
lifetime of their father i.e. Haji Pir Muhammad, one of his sons namely Abdul Baqi died, which
disentitled his legal heirs to inherit the left over property by Pir Muhammad, but the courts below
failed to make any order to the effec t. Further, the shares of the parties were also left
undetermined, which was an error. It was contention of the learned counsel that if the fact of
effecting of the partition was disbelieved, in such case whole of the property was required to be
made subje ct-matter of the suit, but it was not done, therefore, no relief could be granted in
favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.
5. The learned counsel objected valuation of the suit, which was termed as improper, but no
findings were recorded thereon. Further more, the judgments of the courts below were non -
speaking, and failed to fulfil the legal requirements, therefore, not sustainable. It was further
contended that though separate appeals were filed against the judgment of the trial Court dated
19th July, 20 01 by the parties, but wrong observations of the appellate court prejudiced their
rights. The learned counsel further contended that no decision was made on
merits of the case, rather the findings were given without appreciation of the evidence, and the
material on record. Furthermore, decree sheet was defectively prepared, therefore, needs
rectification. The learned counsel was of the view that the suit failed if the questioned property
determined to be Shamilat, as the remaining shareholders were not made party to the
proceedings. But, while ignoring the law and the facts the suit was allowed, therefore, the
decision of the courts below liable to be set aside with a direction for remand of the case to the
trial Court for deciding it afresh after framing of proper issues.
6. In reply the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 8 controverted the contentions
raised by the counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel contended that the execution of the
will dated 12th November, 1995 was not free from al l doubts, due to the fact that the alleged
partition was described to be effected in the year 1984, but the will was executed years after.
Further, though defendants' witness No.1 (D.W. -1) deposed that he witnessed execution of the
will, which was stated t o be written by Haji Pir Muhammad with his own handwriting in Urdu.
But, in fact the will produced before the court was in English language and being a typed one,
thereby destroyed its credibility. It was contention of the learned counsel that the will mad e in
excess of 1/3rd of the property had no binding effect, except with consent of the parties.
Furthermore, double share in no way can be given to a legal heir by way of a will, being an
established principle. Therefore, the execution of the will if estab lished even then it cannot be
enforced. Furthermore, a legal heir cannot be deprived of his right of inheritance by executing a
will. The learned counsel stated that the fact that the petitioners were receiving rent of some of
the properties was establishe d, which made the respondents entitled for the mesne profit, which
was rightly granted to them by the appellate court, therefore, needs no interference.
7. The facts as revealed from the papers annexed with the petitions are that respondents
Nos.1 to 8 b eing the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of their title being successors of
Haji Pir Muhammad along with the petitioners/defendants, thereby entitled to get their share in
the left over properties by the deceased Pir Muhammad, their predecessor . An order was also
sought to the effect that the property being purchased by Abdul Baqi, and in possession of three
of the plaintiffs, being his legal heirs, none other had any right therein. The prayer for a
preliminary decree was to the effect that shar es of the parties be determined, and rendition of
accounts be made, and on partition possession be delivered to all the parties of their respective
shares. Further, declaring the will as forged, and of no legal consequence was also prayed. A
decree for the ir entitlement of mesne profit for the last three years was also included in the
prayer.
8. In reply to the suit the present petitioners being defendants Nos.1 to 11 not only objected
maintainability of the suit, but prayed for its dismissal being filed beyond the stipulated period.
On merits the blood relation existed between the parties was adm itted, with a denial of existence
of ownership in favour of Abdul Baqi, in respect of a piece of landed property claimed to be
owned by Haji Pir Muhammad, therefore, devolved on all of his legal heirs. Though the
properties detail whereof given in the plai nt were admitted to be owned by their predecessor Haji
Pir Muhammad, but in addition thereto it was their (petitioners') contention that in the lifetime of
Haji Pir Muhammad the properties owned by him were partitioned, and respective shares were
handed ov er to them (parties). Therefore, no claim left with the plaintiffs/ respondents Nos.1 to 8
in the properties purchased after the act of partition by Haji Pir Muhammad, which exclusively
vests with them (replying defendants/present petitioners). Furthermore , the questioned will
claimed to be validly executed on 12th November, 1995 by Haji Pir Muhammad was duly
registered, therefore, in presence thereof no right remains in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents
Nos.1 to 8.
9. The reply of the official defenda nt stated nil on merits of the case, rather disclosed the
fact that a shop situated in Police Plaza was allotted in favour of Haji Pir Muhammad in the year
1986, who paid its monthly rent, and till date it never transferred in the names of any of the legal
heirs.
10. In his reply defendant No.14 only sought dismissal of the suit to his extent, as he had
been unnecessarily joined to the proceedings.
11. The trial Court framed issues, called for evidence of the parties and decided the matter
vide judgment dated 19th July, 2001, thereby allowed the suit and decree was made in the terms;
"It is declared that the plaintiffs are share -holders, being legal heirs of late Pir
Muhammad in the property left mentioned in para No.5 and the defendants are restraine d to
dispose off alienating or transferring the property in any manner, the plaintiffs failed to prove
that how much income the defendants are getting from the property in dispute, therefore, the
relief of mesne profit is refused."
12. This judgment was questioned by the present petitioners by way of filing an appeal. But,
a separate appeal was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 8 being aggrieved of the refusal
of the relief for mesne profit. But, the appeals were decided by a common judgment da ted 1st
December, 2001, by Additional District Judge -I, Quetta, whereby the case was remanded to the
trial Court for re -writing of the judgment to the extent of ascertaining the mesne profit. This
order was questioned by respondents Nos.1 to 8 by way of fi ling a petition for revision of the
decision, which was decided by this court vide judgment dated 16th April, 2002. The matter was
remanded to the appellate court for a decision on merits in accordance with law. On remand the
appeals were separately decide d by the two courts. The appeal filed by Lal Bakht and others/
respondents Nos.1 to 8 was decided by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Presiding
Officer, 1st Labour Court, Quetta vide judgment dated 31st August, 2002. As the mentioned
appeal was only pertained to the prayer for mesne profit, which was refused by the trial Court,
therefore, the appellate court confined its findings only to said extent, and allowed the relief.
While the appeal preferred by the present petitioners Muhammad Rafiq and others was
entertained, and decided by the Additional District Judge -I, Quetta vide judgment dated 18th
February, 2003, who concurred with the findings of the trial Court.
13. Though there was some misconception on part of this court as well as by the ap pellate
courts with regard to the filing of the second appeal by the other party, but this misconception in
no way affected the merits of the case, because both the appellate courts recorded their findings
while attending to the merits of the case. Therefo re, it was merely an overlook of a fact, which
does not vitiate the proceedings held, and the decision made by the appellate courts.
14. In the case in hand a right of inheritance in legacy of Haji Pir Muhammad, predecessor of
the parties, was matter in issue. Respondents Nos.1 to 8 being the plaintiffs to the suit claimed
their right in status of widow, sons, daughters and grandsons of Haji Pir Muhammad, while the
petitioners being the defendants also maintained their status as of sons, daughters and wid ow of
Haji Pir Muhammad. Therefore, to this extent there was no denial from either side about each
others status, and the suit property being legacy of Haji Pir Muhammad, and their right of
succession. But, the fact of effecting of partition of the propert ies, and separation of the shares
and handing thereof to the parties by their predecessor i.e. Haji Pir Muhammad in his lifetime,
was matter in issue. The petitioners asserted effecting of the partition, and handing over of their
respective shares at descr ibed time, but the other side appeared with a denial. Further, the
execution of will by the deceased was also matter of controversy between the two.
15. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties as the right to succeed Pir Muhammad by
both the parties was not a denied fact, but receiving their (plaintiffs') share in lifetime of their
father Haji Pir Muhammad, on basis of partition and confirmation of the fact by execution of a
will, shifted the burden on shoulders of the petitioners/ defendants. In vie w thereof the act of
partition was to be established at first instance, and execution of the will, confirming the act,
would follow it. The petitioners/defendants produced three witnesses. D.W. -1 Badeen Khan and
D.W. -3 Noor Khan for the purpose. Though bot h the witnesses deposed about effecting of the
partition between the parties in lifetime of Haji Pir Muhammad, but, their statements were mere
assertions, therefore, needs corroboration from some other evidence. D.W. -2 Abdul Ghaffar,
appeared as representa tive of Sub -Registrar Office, Quetta, produced the purported will as
Exh:D1 -A, affirming it to be a registered document. The execution of this document was
strongly contested by the respondents Nos.1 to 8 plaintiffs. Therefore, despite the fact that the
will was a registered deed, some more evidence was required for its corroboration, and to
establish its authenticity. The marginal witnesses were not produced, rather one of them was
described to be dead, while for the second one there was no reason.
16. As far as D.W. -1 Badeen Khan was concerned, he described himself to be present at the
occasion, and witnessed the execution of the will. He stated that the will was written in his
presence by Haji Pir Muhammad in Urdu with his own handwriting. But, his stat ement appeared
to be contrary to the document present on record as Ex: D/1, which was in English language and
also a typed one. In addition thereto at the time of recording of his statement in 2000 the witness
Badeen Khan described his age as 28 years, it reflects that he was hardly 12 years old at the time
of execution of the will. Therefore, his presence at the relevant time had no logical explanation.
The contradiction and variations appearing in his statement lessen his credibility. While D.W. -3
Noor Kh an though narrated about effecting of the partition, but unable to show his presence at
the relevant time, and witnessed the process. There was no other evidence to the effect.
Furthermore, during all these years no change was made in the revenue record, n or the respective
shares of the parties were got recorded in their names at relevant time or thereafter. Therefore,
the fact of physical partition of the suit property remained unproved.
17. The will Exh.D/1 being the basic document, therefore, needs dee p probe and effect
thereof. The perusal whereof reveals that the date of its execution mentioned as 12th November,
1995, after nine years of the alleged partition, which was described to be effected in the year
1984. The paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the will s tated the properties given to the first group
consisting of the plaintiffs/present respondents Nos.1 to 8. While the properties fell in the shares
of the present petitioners second group, detail whereof provided in paragraph No.4 of the will.
But, paragrap h No.5 of the will described the details of some more properties which were
asserted to be purchased by Haji Pir Muhammad later in time, after effecting of the alleged
partition. Though the will speaks about effecting of the partition and describing the de tails of
properties devolved on both the parties. But, to the extent of properties newly purchased only
details thereof appeared in the deed, but to said extent there was no will by the executant. But,
the material on record disclosed the fact that the pro perties described in paragraph No.5 of the
will remained in possession of the defendants/present petitioners on death of their father, and
they enjoyed the benefits without having any will in their favour to the extent. Further, the
petitioners have not de nied this fact. Rather, they claimed the said properties to be devolved in
their share.
18. Therefore, while noting down the above narrated facts the learned counsel for the
petitioners was asked that the alleged partition was made in the lifetime of Haj i Pir Muhammad,
and the parties got their respective shares if established, but still the question remains to the
extent of the properties purchased thereafter, details provided in paragraph No.5 of the will, to
whom this property would devolve? The learne d counsel was reluctant to reply. But, contended
that they (petitioners) were in possession of the mentioned properties during lifetime of their
father, therefore, no right left with the other party to said extent. If the contention of the learned
counsel be relied, and partition of the properties and handing over the shares believed, in spite of
the same the property, details whereof given in paragraph No.5 of the will, still remains being
legacy of their predecessor, and a right to succeed exists in favou r of all the legal heirs, and no
one can be deprived thereof.
19. The burden rests with the petitioners, but they failed to discharge. The marginal witnesses
of the will were not produced, nor any other witness in whose presence the process of partition
was held, appeared. The sole witness of the occasion D.W. -1 failed to confirm the deed. In
addition thereto the signatures of Haji Pir Muhammad present on the will were not tried to be
verified nor any signatures made in routine by Haji Pir Muhammad on som e other documents
were produced to enable the court to make comparison thereof. In absence of specific evidence,
and material the purported will was not proved to the state of satisfaction. Neither the fact of the
partition and delivery of the possession o f the respective shares was established. On both counts
the petitioners failed.
20. But as far as claim of mesne profit was concerned, the burden was on the
plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 8 to establish their entitlement. The respondents Nos.1 to 8 being
the plaintiffs came forward with a plea that the defendants/present petitioners were utilizing the
property, thereby receiving the rent, and the income incurred from the properties, therefore, they
being legal heirs of the deceased also entitled for receiving of the profits for last three years as
per their share. The trial Court refused the relief; but the appellate court allowed the same on
appeal vide judgment dated 31st August, 2002. But, while granting the same the appellate court
only relied on the oral evidence to the effect that the rent was being received by the petitioners,
and the orchards were their (petitioners') source of income. But, the appellate court ignored that
no evidence was available on the record to specify the amount/ profits r eceived by the petitioners
during all these years by utilizing the suit property.
21. The term mesne profit defined in section 2(12) Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), its
reproduction would be beneficial: --
"2(12) C.P.C. "mesne profits" of property means those profits which the person in wrongful
possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received
therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to
improvements made by the person in wrongful possession."
22. The onus was on the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 7 to establish the fact that the
property was in wrongful possession of the petitioners/ defendants which make them entitled for
mesne profit. The only object of awarding of a decree for mesne profit is to compensate a person
entitled to be in possession of a property, but being kept out of possession, thereby deprived from
the profits arrived out of such property. But, it is also an established principle that a person who
is not in wrongful possession of such property or in possession thereof as a co -sharer before
partition of the same, he cannot be made accountable for the profits earned during the period.
Therefore, while deciding the question thereby assessing the mesne pr ofit the person claiming
only entitled to the extent whatever the person in wrongful possession has collected from the
property or the amount which without wilful default he might have received. Therefore, some
specific evidence was required initially to e stablish that the petitioners/defendants were in
wrongful possession, and secondly they received the profits arriving therefrom.
23. In present case both the parties being the successors of Haji Pir Muhammad, therefore,
entitled to inherent the legacy le ft by him. Therefore, the fact that the left over property in
possession of some of the legal heirs of the deceased, and being utilized by him would not
amount to be in his wrongful possession. The established principle that the possession of a co -
sharer o f a joint property in absence of proof of ouster or exclusion of other co -sharer cannot
term as wrongful possession. The principle behind it that the person who is not in wrongful
possession cannot be accountable for the profits before partition. Furthermo re, before physical
partition it cannot be ascertained that which piece of the property would devolve in the share of
which of the share holder. In view of the same the petitioners and respondents Nos.1 to 7 were
on same footings, and possession of the pet itioners cannot be termed as wrongful, therefore, the
plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 8 at this stage cannot raise a claim for mesne profit. The appellate
court failed to consider this legal aspect of the case, and wrongly arrived to the conclusion that
they being the owners and co -sharers entitled for its mesne profit, amount whereof not
determined, which was further an error.
24. In view of the above discussion the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or
irregularity in the judgments of t he trial Court dated 19th July, 2001 and 18th February, 2003 of
the Additional District Judge -I, Quetta, and needs no interference by this court, which are hereby
upheld. Resultantly they failed in Civil Revision Petition No.91 of 2003.
25. But, as far a s Civil Revision Petition No.333 of 2002 is concerned, the appellate court has
failed to consider the legal requirement for grant of relief of mesne profit, and the evidence
required for the purpose, erroneously arrived to the conclusion that the plaintiff s/ respondents
Nos.1 to 8 were entitled for mesne profit, which is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the judgment
dated 31st August, 2002 of Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Presiding Officer, 1st Labour
Court, Quetta is hereby set aside.
26. In addition thereto it is observed that though the trial court in its judgment dated 19th
July, 2001 decided issue No.3 to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to get their respective
shares from the properties left by Haji Pir Muhammad as his legal he irs. But while making an
order failed to include this relief in the final judgment. Further, the decree also failed to disclose
the relief of partition and handing over of their respective shares, already prayed in the suit,
despite the fact that positive findings were given in the judgment to the effect. Therefore, the
mentioned reliefs must have been allowed, and included in the decree, but left by the trial court,
and overlooked by the appellate court. Therefore, amending the decree sheet will be justifi ed in
the circumstances.
27. The decree dated 19th July, 2001 is ordered to be amended to the effect that after the
words "paragraph No.5" the following sentence shall be added: --
"The plaintiffs are entitled to get their respective shares from the pr operties left by late
Haji Pir Muhammad as his legal heirs through partition along with the defendants Nos.1 to 11."
Amended decree sheet be prepared.
The Revision Petitions bearing No.333 of 2002, and No.91 of 2003 are disposed of in the
above terms . There shall be no orders as to costs.
JJK/45/Q Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.