' This second aped is directed a ,ainst the judgment and decree, .Date 10-3-1992 passe by Distric Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby the appellants' appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 31-7- 1990 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, dismissing their suit for declaration and possession of land measuring 15 Kanals 18 Marlas, detailed in the plaint, situated in village Topi, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi was dismissed with costs.
2.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also seen the record.
3.The relevant facts are that the suit land alongwith other land belonged to one Harnam Singh. His wife Mst. Gopi Devi and his sons Kartar Singh, Raghbir Singh and Baldiv Singh, treating Harnam Singh to be a lunatic ( {{URDU TEXT}}) partitioned the property of Harnam Singh between themselves, including the suit land, during the lifetime of Harnam Singh vide registered partition deed (Exh. P.4) registered on 15-7-1946 and on the basis of this registered partition deed, Revenue Mutation No, 524 (Exh. P.5) was attested on 27-5-1947 whereby the name of Harnam Singh was removed from the column of ownership in the Revenue Record and the suit land alongwith other land of Harnam Singh was mutated in the names of above said sons of Harnam Singh. It may be mentioned here that the partition deed (Exh. P.4) shows that the wife and sons of Harnam Singh had undertaken not to dispose of any portion of the property (being joint Hindu family property) during the lifetime of the real owner, Sardar Harnam Singh. These sons, however, on the basis of the registered partition deed, sold the land belonging to their father Harnam Singh, in his lifetime, soon thereafter, vide registered sale deed (Exh.P.3) registered on 20-5-1947, in favour of Maulvi Ghulam Haider, the predecessor of the appellants and two others. The estate had actually been trifurcated in favour of Noor Khan, Major Mehtab and Maulvi Ghulam Haider, Noor Khan purchased 306 Kanals 19 Marlas, Major Mehtab purchased 282 Kanals, 19 Marlas and Maulvi Ghulam Haider purchased 24 Kanals. The consequential Sale Mutation No,526 (Exh.P.6) was attested in favour of Maulvi Ghulam Haider on 27-5-1947. The perusal of the registered partition deed (Exh.P.4) and registered sale deed (Exh.P.3) has further revealed that the land was jointly owned by Sardar Harnam Singh and his brother Raja Singh and the Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, vide his judgment and decree, dated 26- 2-1918, under section 20 of Act V of 1908, decided the suit instituted by Raja Singh. Whereby the land situated in Village Topi came to be vested in the name of Harnam Singh. In the Revenue Record, however, both brothers Harnam Singh and Raja Singh were continuously shown as owners, in equal shares. It has been stated in the registered sale-deed (Exh.P.3) that the Revenue Record was not corrected due to the negligence of the vendors i,e, the sons of Harnam Singh. The learned Appellate Court has correctly held this claim to be one-sided. The signatures of Raja Singh brother of Harnam Singh were not obtained on the sale-deed to show that he had conceded to the claim.
Similarly, no document, including the judgment delivered by the Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, on 26-2-1918, has been produced in evidence to show that Harnam Singh was the exclusive owner of the landed property in the village Topi to the exclusion of his brother Raja Singh.
4. Maulvi Ghulam Haider died in February, 1959 and the Inheritance Mutation No, 36 (Exh. P.9) in favour of the appellants was attested on 7-11-1959. It is the case of the appellants that they applied to the Custodian Authorities for the confirmation of the sale and after dismissal of their application by the Deputy Custodian on 27-12-1960, their appeal was allowed by the Additional Custodian, Evacuee Property, Lahore vide order, dated 7-8-1962 (Exh.P.10) and the sale was confirmed in their favour. Subsequently, Chief Settlement Commissioner, vide his letter, dated 5-8-1963, issued directions that the property be restored in the name of the evacuee owners, resultantly, Mutation No,146 (Exh.P.12) was attested on 30-9-1963 and the names of the evacuee owners namely Harnam Singh and his brother Raja Singh were restored in the Revenue Record and the names of the successors of Maulvi Ghulam Haider were removed from the ownership column. Thereafter, the land in question, having been treated as an evacuee property, was allotted to respondent No,2, Mst. Shah Begum, a displaced person on 13-12-1963, at RL-II, Khata No,1, Mutation No,153, dated 6-6- 1964 (Exh.P.13) shows that the allottee sold the land allotted to her, vide registered sale-deed, dated 14-1-1964 to Captain Israr Khan (respondent No,3), who, vide Mutation No,247, dated 26-12-1969 (Exh.P.15), further transferred it to Sher Zaman (respondent and vide Mutation No,248 (Exh.P.14) to Fazal Karim (respondent and Abdul Haq (respondent No,6). They, in turn, alienated a part of it to respondents Nos. 7 to 9 as shown in Exh. P.16 to P.18. The land is stated to be in possession of respondents/defendants Nos. 4 to 9, who, according to the appellants, had occupied it unlawfully by taking undue advantage of their absence from Rawalpindi. It is, however, asserted by them that they had remained in continuous possession of the land till 26-12-1969. It is alleged by the appellants that in 1969 they migrated to Azad Kashmir and in their absence, the land in dispute was occupied by the respondents, on the basis of their title as vendees from the allottee, which led to the institution of the present suit in the Civil Court at Rawalpindi on 30-7-1971. They prayed for a declaration that the abovesaid letter, dated 5-8-1963 of Chief Settlement Commissioner was illegal and that the subsequent allotment in favour of respondent No,2 and the sales effected by her and all the subsequent sales were void. They also claimed a relief for possession.
5. Only defendants Nos. 4, 7 and 13 contested the suit. The other defendants were proceeded ex parte. The contesting defendants claimed to be bona fide purchasers for consideration and further averred that the sale in favour of Maulvi Ghulam Haider, the appellants' predecessor, by Kartar Singh, Raghbir Singh and Baldiv Singh, the sons of Harnam Singh was invalid and void and the land in dispute was correctly treated as evacuee property and was validly allotted to respondent No,2, Mst. Shah Begum.
6. The learned trial Court framed the following issues: Issues Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit? OPD (1)_ ((1-A) Whether the suit is unauthorized? If so, its effect? OPD-7 (2)Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction? OPD .
(3)Whether defendants Nos. 4, 7 to 13 are the bona tide purchasers for value without notice? OPD 4, 7 and 13.
(4)Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute? OPP (5)Whether the decision of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore declaring the suit property as evacuee and its resumption through Letter No, 4390-63/4806(PL), dated 5-8-1963 is illegal, void, against facts and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP (6)If Issue No,5 is proved, whether the subsequent allotment in favour of the defendants by the Settlement Department are also illegal, void, against facts and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiffs?
(7)Relief.
7. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence, vide its judgment and decree, dated 31-7- 1990, dismissed the appellants' suit with costs. Their appeal, as mentioned above, was dismissed by District Judge, Rawalpindi on 10-3-1992. Hence, this second appeal.
8. It may further be mentioned here that the vendees from the evacuee owners namely Noor Khan, Major Mehtab and Maulvi Ghulam Haider, have so far, twice come to this Court and Noor Khan and "Major Mehtab have twice approached the Honourable Supreme Court. Exh.D.2 is the copy of judgment delivered by Honourable Supreme Court on 10-8-1987 in Civil Appeals Nos.865, 866 and 867 of 1984, whereby all these appeals were dismissed. The facts of the case were recorded by the apex Court in paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the judgment. Keeping in view the convenience, the same are reproduced below:--- "2. In village Topi, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi, there was joint ownership of the evacuees, Kartar Singh, Raghbir Singh and Baldeo Singh. On the 20th of May, 1947, Mehtab Khan (appellant in C.A.
867 of 1984) purchased by registered sale- eed an area of 282 Kanals, 19 Marlas out of it. Another area of 306 Kanals, 19 Marlas was purchased by Noor Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in C.A. No, 865 of 1984. 24 Kanals were purchased in similar fashion by Ghulam Haider Jandoli, which is not in consent. Mutations giving effect to these sales were also attested.
During the year 1954-55, the partition of joint Khata was carried out. The Enforcement Staff examined these sales and advised the vendees to obtain confirmation of the sales in their favour under section 20 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 from the Custodian as the sales had been effected after the 1st of March, 1947. The vendees made the necessary applications and sought condonation of the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Deputy Custodian dismissed their application as time-barred on 19-11-1960 and the Custodian also dismissed it on the 9th of December, 1960. They sought review of the order of the Custodian but failed. Thereafter Mehtab Khan and Noor Muhammad filed direct appeals in the Supreme Court under Article 160 of the 1956 Constitution. While these appeals were pending, they applied to the Central Government for exempting the land in dispute under section 55 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The Central Government did not agree to the exemption but referred to the Custodian for review and to enable the Custodian to review the matter. They withdrew their appeals pending in the Supreme Court. The Custodian finally by a letter, dated 23rd April, 1963 informed the Central Government that the Custodian was left with no jurisdiction to deal with the matter on account of the curtailment of the powers of review since the 7th of June, 1962. On 5th of August, 1963, the Chief Settlement Commissioner issued notice to these vendee appellants for showing cause why their possession on the land be not vacated and the property resumed from them. Both Noor Muhammad and Mehtab Khan appellants filed Constitutional petitions which were dismissed. They brought the matter to the Supreme Court. After examining at great length the law applicable, it was held by this Court in Maj. Mehtab Khan v. The Rehabilitation Authority and another PLD 1973 Supreme Court 451 that after the acquisition of the lands under section 4 of the Act, the Custodian of the Evacuee Property was left with no jurisdiction to confirm the sales in favour of the two appellants. Their appeals were dismissed. However, in the concluding para. Of the judgment, a recommendatory note to the following effect was recorded:--- " Before parting with these cases, we would, however, like to observe that the sales in favour of the two appellants having been effected under registered sale deeds, and for adequate consideration, it would be in the fitness of things if the Central Government or the Chief Settlement Commissioner were to see their way to transferring these lands to the appellants either under the policy letter referred to by Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan as Custodian of Evacuee Property in his order, dated the 18th of July, 1961, or according to any other provisions and powers that may be available in this behalf. It would indeed be a great hardship to the appellants, and to those persons who have purchased small plots of land from them, and constructed residential houses thereon, if the lands were taken away from them at this stage owing to non-confirmation of the sales in question. The price already paid by the appellants would naturally have to be taken into account in assessing their liability for any further payments for these lands."
3.In the meantime on 30th September, 1963, land measuring 285 Kanals out of the disputed land claimed by these vendee c was proposed in the name of Mst. Shah Begum, a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir with verified claim. It was confirmed to her on 13-12-1963. One Mst. Maryam challenged her allotment, on the ground that she had a prior right to be settled on that land. That appeal was considered by Deputy Settlement Commissioner and dismissed on 13-4-1964. On the 14th of January, 1964, Mst. Shah Begum sold this land by registered deed in favour of Dr. Muhammad Israr Khan. The consequential mutation was attested on 6-6-1995. An application was then filed by Akhtar Alam, the informer under sections 10 and 11 of the Act complaining of the fraudulent allotment of Mst. Shah Begum., This was heard ex parte by the Settlement Cmmissioner who allowed it on 3-5-1976 and cancelled the allotment of Mst. Shah Begum.
4.Dr. Muhammad Israr Man, the vendee from Mst. Shah Begum field a consequential petition in the High Curt challenging this decision on the ground that not only he had purchased the property by registered deed and was recorded as the owner of it and had not been leaded or informed of the proceedings, but that Mst. Shah Begum, who was proceeded ex parte, had died before this application was filed. These grounds were upheld, the order of resumption was set aside and the proceedings were remanded to re-decide it after impleading the property parties. The Chief Settlement Commissioner afforded an opportunity of hearing to everyone concerned including the two vendees from the evacuee and by his order, dated 21-12-1983 held that the allotment in favour of Mst. Shah Begum was genuine, legal and not liable to interference in proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Act.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, four Constitutional petitions were filed in the High Court one (Writ Petition No,10-R of 1984) was filed by informer Akhtar Alam against the rejection of his application, the other two (Writ Petitions 12 and 13-R of 1984) were filed by the two vendees from the evacuee. The fourth is not relevant. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the two vendees from the evacuees were not claimants, had no pending proceedings which were saved or continued in terms of subsection (2) of section 2 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws Repeal Act, 1975. The transfer of the claim of Mst. Shah Begum to Village Topi was held to be in accordance with law and prior to the allotment in her favour and that that allotment had stood the test when Mst. Waryam had appealed against it. The findings of the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the documents showing to the contrary were not genuine and that they had been purposely introduced to make out a case, was upheld and the Constitutional petitions were dismissed".
The apex Court, in para. (13) of its judgment held the claim of Mst. Shah Begum to, be genuine and it was further held that her excess units were validly transferred to Village Topi, The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeals holding that the land had lawfully been transferred to Mst. Shah Begum and there was little scope of interference with the same. It was further held (para. 14) that the Chief Settlement Commissioner having exclusive jurisdiction in the matter, had undertaken an inquiry and had given elaborate reasons to support the act of acquisition of the land its allotment to Mst. Shah Begum. Similarly, Exh.D.3 is copy of judgment dated 11-6-1988 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court whereby Review Petitions Nos.58-R, 59-R and 60-R of 1987 of .Major Mehtab Khan etc. Were dismissed on 11-6-1988.
9. The above mentioned shows that the order, dated 5-8-1963 passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner, whereby the whole of the land including the suit-land was treated as evacuee property and was allotted to Mst. Shah Begum, was upheld by the Supreme Court, as far back as on 10-8-1987. It is the same sale transaction on the basis of which co-vendees namely Major Mehtab Khan and Noor Khan etc. Went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and failed. Exh.D.4 is the copy of judgment, dated -7-1984 given by this Court whereby Writ Petition No,14 Rf 1984, instituted by the present appellants challenging the correctness of order dated 13-12-1963 of the Settlement Commissioner confirming the allotment of land in question in favour of Mst. Shah. Begum was dismissed with the observation that the writ petitioners/present appellants should have waited for the final decision of their civil appeal pending before District Judge, Rawalpindi, filed in the ordinary channel before invoking Constitutional jurisdiction. The decision of the said civil appeal is impugned in the present second appeal.
10.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the genuineness of the document (Exh. P.10) is a question of fact and not of law, the findings of the Courts below are totally perverse, justifying interference in second appeal, the sales in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessor, by the evacuee owners were legal, the Civil Court could not go beyond the orders of the Custodian, no hearing was granted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner before passing the impugned order, dated 15-8-1963, it was not concealed or hidden evacuee property because the plaintiffs were recoded as owners in the Revenue Record, therefore, the provisions of section 3 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 providing the cutoff date i,e, 1-1-1957, did not come into play the presumption of correctness is attached to Exh.P.10 and the judgment, dated 10-8-1987 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 865, 866 and 867 of 1984 is not applicable either to the appellants or to their predecessors Maulvi Ghulam Haider as they were neither a party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court nor their property was subject-matter in the said appeals.
11.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that Issue No,4 was comprehensively framed, it was for the plaintiffs to prove their ownership, they based their ownership on Exh, P.10, an order of Additional Custodian, therefore, it was for them to prove its genuineness, the judgments of the Supreme Court (referred above) are final and the allotment in favour of Mst. Shah Begum was upheld in 'its entirety by the apex Court, that the reappraisal of evidence in second appeal is not permissible (relies on Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others 2000 SCM R 431), under section 2 of the Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act (XII of 1928) only a person who is and has been from birth a lunatic or idiot, is to be excluded from inheritance and not otherwise and as the circumstances show, including the litigation of Harnam Singh with his brother Raja Singh, that Harnam Singh was not a lunatic or idiot by birth and merely a supervening lunacy, if any, is no ground of exclusion from inheritance, hence the sale-deed (Exh. P.3), dated 20-5-1947 executed by the sons of Harnam Singh, namely Kartar Singh, Raghbir Singh and Baldiv Singh in favour of the vendees Nor Khan, Major Mehtab and Maulvi Ghulam Haider, the predecessor of the appellants did not create any right or title in favour of Maulvi Ghulam Haider or the appellants, the alleged order, dated 7-8-1962 passed by the Additional Custodian (Exh. P.10) confirming the sale, is a forgery, P.W.1, Sardar Muhammad Hayat, did not answer any questions regarding when, how, why and by whom the application was given to the Additional Custodian for the confirmation of the sale, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in the second appeal unless it is a case of non-reading of evidence or the findings of the Courts below are perverse, merely a different view of this Court, on the reappraisal of evidence, cannot be a ground for the interference in the second appeal and the concurrent findings of facts are immune from scrutiny in the second appeal. The learned counsel in support of his contentions has placed his reliance upon Hardayal Mal v. Mulk Raj and another AIR 1928 Lah. 911, Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291, Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others 2000 SCM R 431, Muhammad Hussain v.
Waheed Ahmad and 3 others 2000 M LD 281 (Lah.), Messrs Canal Breeze Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Agricultural and Transport Development Corporation (Pvt.) Limited 2000 SCM R 506 and Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Siddiq Hashim PLD 1992 SC 838.
12. Section 2 of Hindu Inheritance (Removal of 'Disabilities) Act (XII of 1928) provides as follows: "2. Notwithstanding any rule of Hindu Law or custom to the contrary, no person governed by the Hindu Law, other than a person who is and has been from birth a lunatic or idiot, shall be excluded from inheritance or from any right or share in joint-family property by reason only of any disease, deformity or physical or mental defect."
' It is thus, clear that only those persons governed by Hindu Law, are to be excluded from inheritance, who have been lunatics or idiots from birth and not otherwise. There is no evidence on record establishing lunacy of Harnam Singh by birth, the father of the vendors Kartar Singh, Raghbir Singh and Baldiv Singh, who executed the sale-deed (Exh. P.3), registered on 20-5-1947, in favour of the appellants predecessor Maulvi Ghulam Haider. The abovesaid vendors themselves mentioned in the sale-deed (Exh. P.3) that Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, vide hisjudgment and decree, dated 26-2-1918 under section 20 of Act V of 1908, decided the suit instituted by Raja Singh against his above said brother, Sardar Harnam Singh, whereby the land situated in village Tope, including the suit-land, came to be vested in the name of Harnam Singh. Had, Sardar Harnam Singh, been a lunatic or idiot from birth, Raja Singh would have taken this plea and Sardar Harnam Singh could not have secured the landed property in Village Topi, to the exclusion of his brother Raja Singh. In fact, this litigation between two brothers, mentioned in the sale-deed (Exh. P.3) itself shows that Sadar Harnam Singh was not a lunatic or idiot by birth. He may have, however, fell prey to insanity in 1964 when his heirs i,e, his wife Mst. Gopi Devi and his above mentioned sons, partitioned his property, amongst themselves vide registered partition deed (Exh.P.4), dated 8-7-1946. These documents (Exh. P.3 and Exh. P.4) merely show that he became insane in the later stage of hi' life and on this basis, under section 2 of the above said Act XII of 1928, he could not have been disinherited. In Parameswa ram Pillai Velayudham Pillai represented by Next Friend Needleman Pillai Lakshmi Pillai v. Parameswa ram Pillai Narayana Pillia, alias Kesava Pillai AIR 1961 Mad. 345, a Division Bench of Madras High Court held that supervening lunacy was not a ground of exclusion from inheritance. No valid title, therefore, vested in the sons of Sardar Harnam Singh, during his lifetime, to competently and validly enter into sale transaction in regard to the property of Sardar Harnam Singh and, therefore, sale-deed, dated 20-5-1947 (Exh.P.3) D executed by the sons of Sardar Harnam Singh in favour of Maulvi Ghulam Haider and two others, being illegal, was void, ab initio.
No valid title, under the same, was created in favour of the vendee Maulvi Ghulam Haider, the predecessor of the appellants. The findings of the learned Appellate Court in this regard, are unexceptionable.
13. Assuming for arguments sake that the sale transaction in favour of Maulvi Ghulam Haider (Exh.P.3), dated 20-5-1947 was valid and enforceable, it was incumbent upon the vendee Maulvi Ghulam Haider to get the sale confirmed from the Custodian. All sales, by or on behalf of an evacuee, under section 20 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957), on or after the 1st day of March, 1947 were ineffective, unless confirmed by the Custodian. In Maj. Mehtab Khan v. The Rehabilitation Authority and another PLD 1973 Supreme Court 451, a ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to this very transaction, it was heldthat the protection granted by subsection (1) of section 3 of the abovesaid Act XII of 1957 was not available to properties occupied, supervised or managed by persons, whose authority or right so to do after the 28th day of February, 1947 has not been accepted or approved by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and that these words are wide enough to include cases of vendees of evacuee properties where the sales were effected after the 28th day of February, 1947 and they have not been confirmed by the Custodian. It is the case of the appellants that their application for the confirmation of sale was dismissed by Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Properties, on 27-12-1960, but their appeal was allowed and the sale was confirmed by the Additional Custodian, vide his order, dated 7-8-1962 (Exh. P.10).
This order, at the end, is signed by some Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, Lahore and not by an Additional Custodian. There is no evidence that it is case of mistake and, in fact, an order was passed by an Additional Custodian, allowing the appeal of the appellants. According to the officials, who were examined as D.Ws., the record of the cases, relating to Rawalpindi, were supposed to have been consigned to the Record Room at Rawalpindi. Naseer Ashraf, D.W.2, stated that he was the custodian of the record. He produced the register containing the entries of the cases decided from 6-5-1948 to 16-6-1975. Between the entries, dated 5-5-1964 and 16-6-1975, there was no other entry and no decided case file was consigned to Record. During the intervening period, the entry, dated 6-6-1975 pertains to a case decided on 19-8-1968. The case of Major Mehtab Khan, a co-vendee, alongwith Maulvi Ghulam Haider, predecessor of the appellants, finds mention in the record, but there is no entry in regard to the appellants' case. The order, dated 7-8- 1962 allegedly passed by an Additional Custodian (Exh.P.10) is a non-existing crder. The Courts below, therefore, have correctly not relied upon the same. The concurrent findings of fact, of the Courts below, in this regard, are confirmed. Furthermore, it is settled law that once property has been validly acquired under section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act (XXVIII of 1958) or under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Lands Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), the right, title and interest of any evacuee or person claiming through him in the property specified in the notification stands extinguished from the date of the publication of the notification, and the F property vests wholly and absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Such acquired property passes into the compensation pool and the jurisdiction of all other authorities including the Custodian of Evacuee Property, stands excluded. Reference in this regard, once again, can be made to Maj. Mehtab Khan v. The Rehabilitation Authority and another (supra) wherein the effect of the acquisition of the land of Harnam Singh and its inclusion in the compensation pool and subsequent allotment in favour of Mst. Shah Begum was considered and the allotment was upheld.
14. In view of the above mentioned, I see no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.