Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta

The eldest coparcener (a member who owns a share by birth) of a joint Hindu family has the right to be its Karta (the manager of the joint family). Sujata Sharma was the eldest coparcener of D.R. Gupta & Sons (HUF) and a woman. The Delhi High Court held that the 2005 amendment removed the barrier, so she could be Karta.

Quick Revision

Parties

Mrs. Sujata Sharma — plaintiff; the eldest surviving member of the HUF, and the daughter of Kishan Mohan Gupta. She claimed to be its Karta.

Shri Manu Gupta — defendant No. 1; he is one of defendant Nos. 1 to 4, who opposed her claim. The plaintiff relied on his letters of 2006, which described him as Karta by being the eldest living male member (para 7).

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 — opposed the claim and argued that management is a male right under Hindu law.

Defendant Nos. 5 to 9 — gave a no-objection certificate (NOC) to the claim, which was filed with the plaint. The Court called them virtually plaintiffs (para 1).

Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 — said their position was to be decided as per law. Their counsel supported the plaintiff's claim (paras 1, 12).

Procedural History

1. The plaintiff filed CS(OS) 2011/2006 before the Delhi High Court. The judgment was reserved on 14.12.2015 and pronounced on 22.12.2015.
2. Nine issues were framed by order dated 15.09.2008 (para 3).
3. Issue 1 (valuation and court fee) was first decided in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. That decision was set aside in Appeal No. 293/2010 on 17.01.2013, so the issue stands settled for the plaintiff (para 4).
4. PW-3, N.V. Satyanarayan, Defence Estate Officer, Delhi Circle, gave evidence on 18.07.2013 (para 7).
5. The single judge decided issues 2, 3, 4 and 7 in the plaintiff's favour, then issues 5, 6 and 8. He decreed the suit on 22.12.2015 (paras 12, 27, 29).

Facts

1. The parties are coparceners of D.R. Gupta & Sons, HUF (para 1).
2. The suit property is a residential property at 4, University Road, Delhi-110007. It also includes shares of Motor and General Finance Ltd. and deposits with that company. Two bank accounts are included: Bank of India (Asaf Ali Road) and Vijaya Bank (Ansari Road) (para 2).
3. The Cantonment lease of Bungalow No. 4 was granted on 25.07.1906 in perpetuity at annual rent Rs. 12 to D.R. Gupta. He died on 01.10.71 (para 7).
4. The property was mutated in the name of the HUF and in favour of five legal heirs: Kishan Mohan, Mohinder Nath, Jatinder Nath, Ravinder Nath and Bhupinder Nath (para 7).
5. Kishan Mohan Gupta died on 17-2-1984, according to the note sheet. His heirs were substituted in the record (para 7).
6. The plaintiff is the daughter of Kishan Mohan Gupta, an acknowledged coparcener. She married in 1977 (paras 3, 27).
7. An oral family settlement of 18.01.1999 was recorded in a document dated 01.04.1999 (Ex. PW1/5). It listed Kishan Mohan Gupta's branch, with his wife Shanta K. Mohan and daughters Sujata Sharma and Radhika Seth, as holding a 1/5th share (para 9).
8. The other four 1/5th shares were held by Mahendra Nath Gupta (as Karta), Ravinder Nath Gupta, Bhupinder Nath Gupta and Jitender Nath Gupta (para 9).
9. The plaintiff's counsel pointed to a letter of 08.09.2006 (Ex. P-4) to defendant No. 9, Bharat Gupta, and a letter of 3.10.2006 (Ex. P-3) to the Military authorities and Mukul Gupta (defendant No. 6). In them, Manu Gupta wrote as Karta of the HUF (para 7).
10. Counsel also relied on the defence estate record. It shows mutation in the name of R.N. Gupta (Karta). A letter of 5.8.2003 called him the sole surviving son of D.R. Gupta and Karta of the JHUF (para 7).
11. It is not in dispute between the parties that the plaintiff is the eldest surviving member of the HUF (para 8).
12. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 opposed her claim. Defendant Nos. 5 to 9 had no objection (para 1).

Issues Raised

The main question was whether the plaintiff, as the first-born among the coparceners of the HUF property, was entitled by virtue of her birth to be its Karta (para 1). The Court framed these issues by order of 15.09.2008 (para 3).

1. Has the suit been valued properly and has proper court fee been paid? (OPP)
2. Is the suit for declaration maintainable in its present form? (OPP)
3. Does any coparcenary property (property held jointly by the coparceners) or HUF exist at all? (OPP)
4. Is the plaintiff a member of D.R. Gupta and Sons HUF, and if so, to what effect? (OPP)
5. Did the plaintiff's interest separate on the death of her father Sh. K.M. Gupta in 1984? (OPD)
6. Assuming the HUF exists, can the plaintiff be considered an integral part of it, particularly after her marriage in 1977? Has she ever taken part in its affairs as a coparcener, and with what effect? (OPP)
7. Assuming the HUF exists, is the plaintiff a coparcener and legally entitled to be Karta? (OPP)
8. What is the effect of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act? Has it changed the concept of the joint family or its properties in the law of coparcenary? (OPP)
9. What relief is due?

Arguments Contended

For the plaintiff (Ms. Mala Goel)

1. After the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, all rights of a Hindu male are available to a Hindu female. A daughter is a coparcener by birth in her own right, with the same rights as a son (para 5).
2. She relied on Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as substituted. It makes the daughter a coparcener by birth. It gives her the same rights and liabilities. It also treats a reference to a Mitakshara (the main school of Hindu law) coparcener as including a daughter (para 5).
3. She relied on Tribhovan Das Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (AIR 1991 SC 1538): managership goes by birth and seniority, and the senior-most member is the Karta (para 6).
4. She relied on Ram Belas Singh v. Uttamraj Singh (AIR 2008 Patna 8): after the 2005 Act, a reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener includes a daughter, with the same rights and liabilities by birth (para 6).
5. Defendant No. 1 admitted the HUF. His letters of 3.10.2006 (Ex. P-3) and 08.09.2006 (Ex. P-4) described himself as Karta by being the eldest living male member (para 7).
6. An extract of note sheet No. 36 (Ex. PW3/C) and the evidence of PW-3 (18.07.2013) show that the Defence Estate office treated the property as HUF property with a Karta (para 7).
7. The plaintiff is the eldest surviving member of the HUF, so she seeks a decree (para 8).
8. She relied on Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank ((2007) 2 SCC 230) on Dayabhaga (the Bengal school of Hindu law) and Mitakshara rights of an unborn son. Mitakshara rests on consanguinity. Section 6 extends that to female coparceners in all aspects of inheritance, including the right to manage as Karta, being the eldest coparcener (para 9).
9. The family settlement dated 01.04.1999 (Ex. PW1/5) confirmed that the parties are members of the HUF with 1/5th shares each. It also provided for residence at No. 4 University Road, a sale or development only at Rs. 20 crores or more, relocation payments and later demarcation (para 9).
10. The plaintiff signed the settlement as a family member. Her signature shows she has a share, otherwise it would not be needed (para 10).
11. A Karta is restrained. No rights can be created, and property cannot be appropriated, to the detriment or exclusion of any coparcener (para 11).
12. Mulla on Hindu law says that a daughter is now invested with all coparcener rights, including the right to seek partition (division of the joint property). Under the old law a female could not be Karta, but under the new provision she could also become Karta (para 21).
13. The 174th Report of the Law Commission of India argued that women are equal in modern life. It saw no reason to deprive them of managing the HUF as Karta. Section 6 was formulated to cover all aspects of succession (para 22).

Submission in para 23 (speaker not stated)

1. On the Court's query, counsel (not named in para 23) submitted that her father died before the amendment. There was no testamentary succession (succession under a will) in her favour, so she would have no coparcenary right on that footing. The same counsel added that a male survivor of Kishan Mohan Gupta would have rights in the coparcenary (para 23).

For defendant Nos. 10 and 11 (Mr. B.K. Srivastava), supporting the plaintiff

1. Section 6(1) is clear and unambiguous and needs no interpretation. A reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener includes a daughter with equal rights. Section 4 overrides contrary views (para 12).
2. For the literal rule of interpretation (plain words are given their plain meaning), they relied on Raghunath Rai Bareja (paragraph 40 of the report, (2007) 2 SCC 230). The Supreme Court there called the literal rule the first and foremost principle. It said other rules apply only when the plain words are ambiguous, lead to no intelligible results, or would nullify the object of the statute if read literally. A court cannot correct a defect in the words (para 12).
3. They relied on Ganduri Koteshwar Ramma v. Chakiri Yanadi ((2011) 9 SCC 788): rights in coparcenary property of male and female members are equal on and from 9.9.2005. The legislature gave a substantive right to daughters (para 13).
4. That decision relied on S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy ((1991) 3 SCC 647): the Hindu Succession Act is beneficial legislation for women, so it must be given literal effect (para 13).
5. Section 29(a) of the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986 is pari materia (counsel's phrase for a provision on the same subject) to Section 6. So the principle in Sai Reddy should be followed, and the eldest member's right extends to female members (para 14).
6. The plaintiff is the eldest coparcener. Her sex is not a disqualification from being Karta, since the 2005 amendment removed it (para 14).
7. They relied on Sukhbir Singh v. Gaindo Devi (RFA(OS) 30/1974, CM Application 2730/2014) of the same Court: Section 4 overrides customs and texts that contradict the Act (para 14).
8. They cited the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2005 Act. It said that excluding daughters from coparcenary discriminates on grounds of gender and negates the fundamental right of equality. Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra had already given equal rights, and Kerala had abolished the joint family system by its 1976 Act. It also proposed to omit Section 23 (para 20).
9. Articles 14, 15 and 16 and the Directive Principles give positive constitutional protection to women (para 21).
10. They relied on Nirmala v. Government of NCT of Delhi (ILR (2010) Supp. (1) Delhi 413, para 13). It sets out the effect of the deletion of sub-Section 2 of Section 4. It also gives the text of old Section 6, new Section 6 and Sections 8 and 9 (para 21).

For defendant Nos. 1 to 4

1. Section 4 must be read in its context. Only customary rights for which the Act makes a specific provision are overridden. Section 6 does not mention the Karta of an HUF, so that right must be drawn from Hindu law texts (para 15).
2. They relied on para 13 of Tribhovan Das, which quotes Raghavachariar's Hindu Law Principles and Precedents (8th ed., 1987), Section 275. The senior member manages. After the father, the next senior-most male member manages. If the father is absent or resigns, management goes to the eldest male member, provided he is not wanting in the necessary capacity. The senior member manages unless incapacitated by illness or other sufficient cause (para 15).
3. S. Sai Reddy only recognises the right of the eldest male member to be Karta. The 2005 amendment gave females equal rights as coparceners but no right in management of HUF property (para 16).
4. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 deals only with succession to the intestate properties of a Hindu. It does not address management of the estate (para 16).
5. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the written statement describe the Karta's powers, which are of wide amplitude (para 17).
6. The limit on custom under Section 4 is not comprehensive. Section 6 defines rights only for inheritance, not management. Undefined rights must be drawn from custom and ancient texts. Where the right of management is not conferred on a female Hindu, customary practice must be examined (para 17).
7. They relied on Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse ((2014) 1 SCC 188, paras 13, 14, 16, 20, 22) (para 17).
8. Succession laws were enacted to remove obstacles and enable inheritance by people with mental disabilities or injuries. They listed the Hindu Inheritance Act, 1928, the Hindu Law of Act, 1929 and the Hindu Amendment Right to Property Act, 1937 (para 17).
9. The 1956 Act also removed obstacles. Section 24 dealt with a remarried widow (since repealed). Section 14 gives a female Hindu absolute ownership of property she possessed. The Act never meant to extend the female coparcener's rights to the management of an HUF, which under ancient Hindu text vests in the eldest male member (para 19).

Court's Reasoning

Najmi Waziri, J. (sole judgment)

1. Noted: the plaintiff claimed Kartaship as the first-born coparcener. The suit property and its parties were set out (paras 1-2).
2. Noted: nine issues were framed by order of 15.09.2008 (para 3).
3. Held: issue 1 is settled in favour of the plaintiff. The earlier decision for defendant Nos. 1 to 4 was set aside in Appeal No. 293/2010 on 17.01.2013 (para 4).
4. Noted: the plaintiff relies on Section 6 as substituted, on Tribhovan Das and on Ram Belas Singh. These are the authorities for the equal status of daughters and the seniority rule (paras 5-6).
5. Noted: the plaintiff's counsel relied on the record to show the HUF exists. He pointed to letters Defendant No. 1 wrote as Karta and to mutation of the property in the name of the Karta (para 7).
6. Noted: it is not disputed that the plaintiff is the eldest surviving member of the HUF (para 8).
7. Noted: Raghunath Rai Bareja explains the difference between the Dayabhaga and Mitakshara schools. The family settlement of 01.04.1999 confirmed the parties' shares (para 9).
8. Noted: the judgment states that the plaintiff signed the settlement as a family member. It says her signature shows she has a share (para 10).
9. Noted: counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Karta is restrained from creating rights or appropriating property to the detriment of any coparcener (para 11).
10. Held: issues 2, 3, 4 and 7 are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the plaintiff (para 12, first paragraph so numbered).
11. Noted: the Court records the arguments of defendant Nos. 10 and 11 on the literal rule, Ganduri Koteshwar Ramma, Sai Reddy and Section 29(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Amendment. It also records the contrary arguments of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (paras 12-17, 19).
12. Noted: the Court records that Sai Reddy considered Section 29(a) of the Act and not Section 6 (para 13).
13. Noted: the objects and reasons of the 2005 amendment say that the earlier law discriminated against daughters. The Court records this and the constitutional submission on Articles 14, 15 and 16 (paras 20-21).
14. Noted: Nirmala v. Government of NCT of Delhi sets out old Section 6, new Section 6 and Sections 8 and 9. The Court records these along with the passage from Mulla (para 21).
15. Noted: the plaintiff's counsel also relied on the Law Commission's 174th Report (para 22).
16. Noted: counsel (not named in para 23) submitted that the plaintiff's father died before the 2005 amendment, with no testamentary succession in her favour. The same counsel said that a male survivor of Kishan Mohan Gupta would have rights in the coparcenary (para 23).
17. Held: the plaintiff's right accrued on the death of the eldest Karta. She corresponded with the Land and Building Department. It is not denied that she is the eldest coparcener. Why: by law, the eldest coparcener is to be Karta of the HUF (para 24).
18. Held: it is an odd proposition that females have equal rights of inheritance but those rights can be curtailed for management. Why: "The clear language of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not stipulate any such restriction." The submissions of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 cannot be accepted (para 25).
19. Noted: in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills the Supreme Court approved the Madras view that managership depends on coparcenership and is confined to male members, as females were not coparceners. It rejected the Nagpur view (para 26).
20. Held: the impediment to a woman becoming Karta was that she lacked coparcenership. Section 6 is a "socially beneficial legislation" that gives equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females (para 27).
21. Held: courts will be extremely vigilant against any attempt to curtail or restrict the statutory guarantee of enhanced rights for women (para 27).
22. Held: the disqualification was removed by the 2005 amendment, so "there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta" (para 27).
23. Held: if a male member can be Karta by being the first-born eldest, so can a female member. The Court finds no restriction in the law against the eldest female coparcener being Karta (para 27).
24. Held: the plaintiff's father's right in the HUF was not lost but was inherited by her. Her marriage did not alter the right to inherit the coparcenary which she got on her father's death under Section 6 (para 27).
25. Held: issues 5, 6 and 8 are also decided in favour of the plaintiff (para 27).

Authorities

• Tribhovan Das Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (AIR 1991 SC 1538): the Karta or manager occupies a position superior to other members and the senior-most member becomes Karta. The plaintiff relied on it, and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 relied on para 13 quoting Raghavachariar (paras 6, 15).
• Ram Belas Singh v. Uttamraj Singh (AIR 2008 Patna 8): after the 2005 Act, a daughter of a coparcener is included in that term. She has the same rights and liabilities by birth (para 6).
• Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others ((2007) 2 SCC 230; the judgment prints the year as 2207): cited for the difference between Dayabhaga and Mitakshara on an unborn son (para 9). Also cited for the literal rule (para 12).
• Swedish Match AB v. Securities and Exchange Board, India (AIR 2004 SC 4219), Prakash Nath Khanna v. C.I.T. (2004 (9) SCC 686), Delhi Financial Corporation v. Rajiv Anand (2004 (11) SCC 625) and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association (2004 (6) SCC 210): cited within the Raghunath Rai Bareja passage on the literal rule (para 12).
• Ganduri Koteshwar Ramma & Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr. ((2011) 9 SCC 788): rights of male and female members in coparcenary property are equal on and from 9.9.2005 (para 13).
• S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy ((1991) 3 SCC 647): the Act is beneficial legislation. The Court notes that it considered Section 29(a) and not Section 6 (paras 13-14, 16).
• Sukhbir Singh v. Gaindo Devi (RFA(OS) 30/1974, CM Application 2730/2014): Section 4 overrides customs and texts that contradict the Act (para 14).
• Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse ((2014) 1 SCC 188): relied on by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (para 17).
• Nirmala & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (ILR (2010) Supp. (1) Delhi 413): effect of the deletion of Section 4(2); text of old and new Section 6 and Sections 8 and 9 (para 21).
• Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law: a daughter is now a coparcener, may seek partition, and could also become Karta (para 21).
• 174th Report of the Law Commission of India: women should not be deprived of the right to manage the HUF as Karta (para 22).
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills (AIR 1966 SC 24): approved the Madras view that coparcenership is a necessary qualification for managership, and that the senior-most female could not be manager. It quoted Budhi Jena v. Dhobai Naik (Orissa), V.M.N. Radha Ammal v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Madras) and the contrary Nagpur view (para 26).
• Raghavachariar, Hindu Law Principles and Precedents (8th ed., 1987), Section 275: quoted in Tribhovan Das on the senior member as manager (para 15).
• Also cited in footnotes: none; the judgment has no footnotes.

Provisions mentioned

• Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (substituted 2005): the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son. Property she gets is held with the incidents of coparcenary ownership. She may dispose of it by will. On a Hindu's death, the interest devolves by succession, not survivorship (the surviving coparceners take the share), and the daughter gets the same share as a son. The share of a pre-deceased son or daughter goes to that person's surviving child, then to that child's child. The interest is the share on a notional partition (an imagined division just before death), whether or not partition could be claimed. A proviso (a condition added to a rule) protects dispositions and partitions before 20 December 2004 (paras 5, 21).
• Section 6(4): after 2005 no court recognises a right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for a father's debt solely on the pious obligation (a son's religious duty to pay his father's debts). Earlier debts and alienations are protected (para 5).
• Section 6(5): the section does not apply to a partition effected before 20 December 2004. Partition means a registered deed or a court decree (para 5).
• Old Section 6: on a male Hindu's death, his Mitakshara coparcenary interest passed by survivorship. A proviso made it pass by succession if there was a female Class I heir (the first class of heirs in the Schedule). Explanation 1 fixed the interest as the share on a notional partition before death. Explanation 2 said a person who separated before the death could not use the proviso (para 21).
• Section 4: overriding effect of the Act over texts and customs contrary to it (paras 12, 14-15, 17, 21).
• Sections 8 and 9: general rules of succession for male intestates (Class I heirs, then Class II, then agnates, then cognates) and the order of heirs (para 21).
• Section 14: a female Hindu holds property as an absolute owner (para 19).
• Section 23: disentitled a female heir from seeking partition of a dwelling house; the 2005 Act proposed to omit it (para 20).
• Section 24: inheritance by a remarried widow, since repealed (para 19).
• Section 29(a), Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986: said to be pari materia to Section 6 (paras 13-14).
• Section 6B: the section Ram Belas Singh was said to deal with (para 6).
• Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution and the Directive Principles of State Policy: positive constitutional protection for women (para 21).
• Registration Act, 1908: a registered deed under it is a partition under Section 6(5) (para 5).
• Hindu Inheritance Act, 1928; Hindu Law of Act, 1929; Hindu Amendment Right to Property Act, 1937: listed as earlier Acts that removed obstacles in inheritance (para 17).
• Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976: mentioned in the objects and reasons (para 20).

Judgement

1. The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the prayer clause (para 29).
2. The plaintiff is declared the Karta of D.R. Gupta & Sons (HUF) (para 29).
3. The decree sheet is to be drawn up accordingly (para 30).
4. The suit is disposed of in these terms (para 31).
5. The judgment records no order on costs.

Legal Principle / Ratio

A woman could not be Karta earlier because she was not a coparcener. The 2005 amendment to Section 6 made a daughter a coparcener by birth. So the eldest female coparcener of an HUF can be its Karta, in the same way as the eldest male coparcener.

Key holding: "The Court finds no restriction in the law preventing the eldest female co-parcener of an HUF, from being its Karta." (para 27).

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The reasoning steps are short. The Court gives its own view in paras 24-27 and spends most of the judgment recording submissions.
• Para 23 notes that the father died before 2005 and that there was no testamentary succession. The judgment does not explain how the plaintiff's coparcenary right arose despite that. It states only that her father's right was inherited by her (para 27).
• The judgment does not discuss in detail the family settlement recital that the parties effected partition (para 9). It does not decide the effect of that recital.
• The Court did not decide whether custom or ancient text can ever restrict management. It held that Section 6 contains no restriction (paras 25, 27).
• The judgment contains some slips, such as the year 1946 for 1956 in the second paragraph numbered 12 and the year 2207 for 2007 in para 9. The date of Kishan Mohan Gupta's death is 17-2-1984 in the note sheet and 1984 in clause 2.1(a) but 1983 in clause 2.3(a) of the settlement (paras 7, 9).

Significance

• The case gives a declaration that a woman is Karta of an HUF, after the 2005 amendment.
• It links management to coparcenership, so the 2005 amendment is read as affecting management as well as inheritance shares.
• It treats Section 6 as socially beneficial legislation and warns courts against restricting the rights it grants (para 27).
• It is a single-judge decision of the Delhi High Court.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: a woman who is the eldest coparcener can be Karta after the 2005 amendment to Section 6. Trap: the barrier was lack of coparcenership, not a separate gender rule.
• Rule: Section 6 gives no ground to restrict management. Trap: defendant Nos. 1 to 4 argued that Section 6 covers inheritance only. The Court called that untenable (paras 16, 25).
• Rule: the right accrued on the death of the earlier Karta, as the eldest coparcener (para 24). Trap: marriage did not take away her coparcenary right (para 27).
• Authorities to remember: Tribhovan Das (seniority), Seth Govindram Sugar Mills (managership needs coparcenership), Ganduri Koteshwar Ramma and Sai Reddy (beneficial legislation).
• Court and date: Delhi High Court, Najmi Waziri, J., 22 December 2015, CS(OS) 2011/2006.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the judgment text; the judgment numbers two paragraphs as 12 and has no paragraph 18 or 28. The reporter citation is not in the judgment text.