RFA 128/2019 Page 1 of 17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 14

th

May, 2026

Judgment pronounced on: 6

th

August, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010106752019

+ RFA 128/2019 & CM APPL. 6667/2019, CM APPL. 17536/2020, CM

APPL. 8014/2021, CM APPL. 31022/2023

PADAM CHAND JAIN & ANR .....Appellants

Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar and Ms.

Parul Sharma, Advocates

versus

ARUN JAIN .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Mr. Vikrant

Kumar, Mr. Aman Bajpayee and Mr.

Parthak Awasthi, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) impugning the judgment and decree dated 3

rd

January,

2019 (hereinafter ‘Impugned Judgment’), passed by the Additional District

Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘Trial Court’) in C.S. No.

58556/2016 titled ‘Shri Arun Jain v. Shri Padam Chand and Anr.’. Vide the

Impugned Judgment, the Trial Court has passed a decree of declaration of

RFA 128/2019 Page 2 of 17

ownership and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, by allowing the

plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to by their original nomenclature

before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as follows:

3.1. The plaintiff is the elder son of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 is

the younger son of the defendant no.1.

3.2. The present dispute pertains to Flat No. 3389, 2

nd

Floor, Category 2,

Pocket 3, Sector D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, along with one scooter garage (‘suit

property’).

3.3. The suit property was originally allotted to the defendant no.1 by Delhi

Development Authority, and converted into a freehold property in favor of the

defendant no.1 vide Conveyance Deed dated 28

th

August, 2003.

3.4. Subsequently, the defendant no.1 executed a registered gift deed dated 5

th

February, 2007 (‘Gift Deed’), transferring rights, title, and interest in the suit

property in favor of the plaintiff.

3.5. The plaintiff concurrently executed a General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’)

on 5

th

February, 2007 in favor of the defendant no.1 to manage and look after the

suit property.

3.6. Disputes arose between the parties, pursuant to which the plaintiff revoked

the GPA vide letter dated 5

th

December, 2013.

3.7. The defendant no.1 instituted CS No. 160/2013 for cancellation of the Gift

Deed. At the stage of proceedings under Order VII Rule 11, CS No. 160/2013

was unconditionally withdrawn on 6

th

June, 2015.

RFA 128/2019 Page 3 of 17

3.8. Following subsequent disputes, the plaintiff instituted the underlying civil

suit seeking a decree of declaration of ownership of the suit property and a

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third-

party rights in the same.

3.9. During the pendency of the underlying civil suit, the plaintiff preferred an

application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking summary disposition of the

suit on the basis of alleged admission of the defendant no.1 admitting to the

execution of the Gift Deed.

3.10. In response, the defendants filed a reply contesting the abovesaid

application on the grounds of maintainability and new facts raised in the

application.

3.11. On 3

rd

January, 2019, the Trial Court passed the Impugned Judgment,

allowing the plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and passing a

decree of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in favor of the

plaintiff.

FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT

4. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of

the findings below:

4.1. The execution of the Gift Deed stands squarely and expressly admitted by

the defendant no.1. The preparation of the legal documents and procurement of

stamp papers by defendant no.1 was undisputed, proving voluntary execution.

(Ref. Para 7.6 and 7.9 of the Impugned Judgment)

RFA 128/2019 Page 4 of 17

4.2. The registered Gift Deed is absolute and unconditional. The close

relationship between the parties further substantiates the voluntary nature of the

gift. (Ref. Para 7.7 and 7.8 of the Impugned Judgment)

4.3. The concurrent execution of the GPA does not indicate that the Gift Deed

was temporary. The GPA explicitly notes that it was executed because the

plaintiff was residing in the USA and could not manage the property locally. (Ref.

Para 7.10 of the Impugned Judgment)

4.4. Under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no oral

evidence or contrary oral arrangements can be admitted to contradict, vary, or

subtract from the terms of a written registered document. (Ref. Para 7.11 of the

Impugned Judgment)

4.5. The recitals of the registered Gift Deed explicitly record the handing over

of possession. In any case, actual physical delivery of possession is not an

essential pre-requisite for the legal validity of a gift. (Ref. Para 7.14 and 7.15 of

the Impugned Judgment).

4.6. The plaintiff’s right in the suit property, which devolved upon him on

account of execution and registration of the Gift Deed, would not be affected

merely because the original documents were with the defendant no. 1 (Ref. Para

7.27 of the Impugned Judgment).

4.7. Since the material fact of the execution of the registered transfer document

stands admitted, no triable issue survived, making it a fit case for passing a

judgment on admissions to avoid protracted trial. (Ref. Para 7.25 of the

Impugned Judgment).

RFA 128/2019 Page 5 of 17

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

5. Notice in the present appeal was issued on 13

th

February, 2019, and a stay

against the operation of the impugned judgement was granted.

6. The defendant no.1 expired on 23

rd

December, 2019, and subsequently, the

daughter of defendant no.1 was impleaded as the respondent no.2.

7. On 23

rd

January, 2025, the defendant no.2 (appellant no.2) expired, and

accordingly, on 6

th

March, 2025, the Ms. Nehal Jain and Komal Jain, the

daughters of the appellant no. 2 were impleaded in the present appeal.

8. Oral submissions on behalf of the parties commenced on 23

rd

April, 2026.

The submissions of the parties stood concluded on 14

th

May, 2026, on which date

the judgment was reserved.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

9. The Trial Court committed an error in law by invoking the discretionary

power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. A judgment on admissions can only be

passed where admissions are clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. In the present

case, several triable issues and disputed facts existed regarding the intent behind

the Gift Deed.

10. The Gift Deed was a makeshift arrangement on the assurance that the

plaintiff would serve his old aged parents. This is evidenced from the fact that on

the same date a GPA was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no.1

as a back-to-back arrangement for keeping the defendant no.1’s ownership over

the suit premises intact and undisturbed.

RFA 128/2019 Page 6 of 17

11. The Gift Deed was never acted upon since the title deeds and the physical

possession property of the suit property was never handed over to the plaintiff

and always remained with the defendant no.1. Since neither the physical

possession was handed over nor the original documents were handed over, the

title in the property continues to vest with the defendant no.1.

12. The Gift Deed stood cancelled in light of the notice of revocation issued

by the defendant no.1 dated 6

th

December, 2013. In terms of section 126 TPA the

said cancellation was valid and the Gift Deed is no longer valid or subsisting.

Further, the Gift Deed stood superseded by the Will dated 10

th

June, 2015.

13. The plaintiff introduced new facts through the application filed under

Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which could not have been acted upon without a proper

trial.

14. Registered gift deeds are liable to challenge under Section 23 of the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘Senior

Citizens Act’), which came into force on 1

st

September, 2008. Accordingly, if the

defendant no.1 sought cancellation of the Gift Deed after 1

st

September, 2008,

such challenge would have a statutory basis under the said provision.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

15. The status of the plaintiff as the sole and absolute owner of the suit

property is premised on the Gift Deed. The execution and registration of the Gift

Deed is not disputed by the defendants. The unconditional nature of the Gift

Deed may be inferred from the terms of the Gift Deed, including clauses 1 to 7

RFA 128/2019 Page 7 of 17

of the Gift Deed. The Gift Deed was duly acted upon, as reflected from the

mutation of utility records and payment of property taxes by the plaintiff.

16. The execution of the GPA on the same day does not dilute the legal effect

of the Gift Deed. The GPA itself records the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the

suit property and was executed only to enable the defendant no.1 to manage the

property during the period when the plaintiff was residing abroad.

17. The defendant no.1 had instituted CS No. 160/2013 for cancellation of the

Gift Deed. The said suit was unconditionally withdrawn on 6

th

June, 2015 and

thereafter no proceedings for cancellation of the Gift Deed were instituted. It is

pertinent to note, CS No. 160/2013 filed by the defendant no.1 was premised on

the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, which is at variance with the reliance

placed upon the GPA by the defendants in the present proceedings.

18. Once the signature and execution of a registered Gift Deed stand admitted,

any plea of an underlying "oral understanding" or "makeshift arrangement" is

barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Reliance in this

regard is placed on Promila Gulati v. Anil Gulati

1

.

19. The subsequent notice purporting to revoke the Gift Deed is legally

untenable. Under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an

unconditional gift can be revoked only in the circumstances expressly

contemplated therein. As the Gift Deed contains no stipulation reserving any

right of revocation, the unilateral notice dated 11

th

May, 2015 could not divest

the plaintiff of the rights already vested in him.

1

2015 SCC OnLine Del 7406.

RFA 128/2019 Page 8 of 17

20. Delivery of physical possession is not an essential requirement for the

validity of a registered gift under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act,

1882. The retention of possession or original documents by the donor,

particularly when the plaintiff had executed a GPA in his favour for management

of the property, does not affect the plaintiff's title. Reliance in this regard is placed

on Sehdev Singh Verma v. J.P.S. Verma

2

.

21. The registered Gift Deed continues to remain valid and operative unless it

is set aside by a competent court. Since no proceedings challenging the Gift Deed

are pending, the defendants cannot question its validity in the present

proceedings. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ramti Devi v. Union of India

3

.

22. The purpose of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to expedite justice and the Trial

Court correctly passed the Impugned Judgement in the present case. Reliance is

placed on Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan

4

for the proposition

that admissions can be easily inferred from the pleadings and attending

circumstances, and on Mohinder Singh Verma v. J.P.S. Verma

5

to state that

subsequent claims of oral conditions accompanying a registered gift deed are

legally impermissible.

23. The reliance sought to be placed by the defendants upon Section 23 of

the Senior Citizens Act is misconceived. The Gift Deed was executed prior to the

enactment of the said Act and the donor never invoked the provisions thereof

during his lifetime. The plaintiff's rights, having vested under a registered Gift

2

2015 SCC OnLine Del 11654.

3

1995 (1) SCC 198.

4

2005 (11) SCC 279.

5

2014 SCC OnLine Del 2565.

RFA 128/2019 Page 9 of 17

Deed executed prior to the commencement of the Act, cannot be retrospectively

defeated. Reliance in this regard is placed on Charanjit Singh Ahluwalia v.

Union of India

6

, Human Rights and Social Welfare Forum v. Union of India

7

and M.M. Ramesh v. M.S. Manikavasagam

8

.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

24. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, examined the

grounds of appeal, and carefully scrutinized the Trial Court record.

25. In the present case the plaintiff claims ownership of the suit property on

the basis of the registered gift deed dated 5

th

February, 2007 executed by his late

father, late Shri Padam Chand Jain, the defendant no.1. To be noted, neither the

execution nor the registration of the Gift Deed has been denied by the defendants

in their respective written statements. This amounts to an admission of the

execution and registration of the Gift Deed.

26. It is evident from a perusal of the Gift Deed, that the Gift Deed was

absolute and unconditional. In this regard, reference may be made to clause 3 the

gift deed.

“3. The DONEE-PARTY NO.2 has now become the absolute and exclusive

owner with all rights of Ownership etc. in the aforesaid only One freehold Flat

on Second Floor alongwith One Scooter Garage on Ground Floor, fitted with

Water and Electric connections with necessary fixtures and fittings, bearing Flat

No.: 3389, Category 2nd, in Pocket – 3, Sector-D, situated at Vasant Kunj, New

Delhi, from to-day and shall also enjoy all rights of Ownership etc. therein

hereinafter including the sale thereof.”

(emphasis supplied)

6

2023 SCC OnLine Del 2730.

7

2021 SCC OnLine Ker 12268.

8

2026 SCC OnLine Mad 3006.

RFA 128/2019 Page 10 of 17

27. Clause 2 of the Gift Deed also records that actual physical possession of

the subject property has been delivered to the defendant no.1 by the plaintiff.

Clause 2 of the Gift Deed is set out below:

“That the actual, physical, vacant and peaceful possession of the

aforesaid FLAT/PROPERTY UNDER DONATION shall be handed -over/

delivered to the DONEE PARTY NO.2 by the DONOR PARTY NO.1 at the Spot

and the DONEE PARTY NO.2 has also accepted the same.”

28. A perusal of the recitals to the Gift Deed clearly shows that the defendant

no.1 has voluntarily, out of love and affection made the gift in favour of his elder

son, i.e., the plaintiff. The same are set out below:

“AND WHEREAS the DONOR PARTY NO.1 have voluntarily great love

and affection with the DONEE NO.-2 Shri Arun Jain being HIS Real elder

Son.

AND WHEREAS the DONOR PARTY NO.1 has agreed to voluntarily

donate/gift the aforesaid only One Free-hold Flat on second Floor

alongwith One Scooter Garage on Ground Floor, fitted with Water and

Electric connections with necessary fixtures and fittings, bearing Flat No.:

3389, Category 2nd, in Pocket-3, Sector-D, situated at Vasant Kunj, New

Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the FLAT/PROPERTY UNDER

DONATION/GIFT) UNTO the DONEE PARTY NO.2 on account of HIS

great love and affection with HIM who has also agreed to accept the

same.”

(emphasis supplied)

29. On the day of the execution of the Gift Deed, the plaintiff, who was

residing abroad, executed a GPA in favour of the defendant no.1 for the purposes

of management of the suit property. The said GPA also records that the plaintiff

is the absolute owner of the suit property.

30. In the year 2013, the defendant no.1 had instituted a suit bearing CS (OS)

No.160 of 2013 seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed. In the said suit, the

RFA 128/2019 Page 11 of 17

defendant no.1 alleged that he was fraudulently made to execute the Gift Deed.

However, the said suit was unconditionally withdrawn by the defendant no.1 on

6

th

June, 2015. Subsequently, the defendant no.1 has not filed any further legal

proceedings for cancellation of the gift deed.

31. The defence taken by the defendants in the written statements was that the

gift deed was in the nature of a makeshift arrangement on the assurance that the

plaintiff would serve his old aged parents. The GPA was executed on the same

date by the plaintiff as a back-to-back arrangement for keeping the defendant

no.1’s ownership over the suit premises intact and undisturbed.

32. The aforesaid contention of the defendant no.1 is completely contrary to

the terms of the Gift Deed as well as the GPA. In terms of the Gift Deed, as noted

above, the plaintiff was to become the sole and absolute owner of the suit

property. This fact is reiterated in the GPA executed on the same date. The

aforesaid plea is also contrary to the case set up by the appellants in the earlier

suit filed by him, i.e., CS (OS) No. 160 of 2013, wherein it was stated that the

defendant no.1 was fraudulently made to enter into the Gift Deed.

33. In terms of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in respect of a

written document, the document itself has to be admissible as a whole. Section

92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no oral evidence can be led

which is contrary to the written text of a document. In this regard reference may

be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Kumar v. Mohan

Thedani

9

, followed by this Court in Promila Gulati v. Anil Gulati

10

. Further, in

9

(2003) 6 SCC 595.

10

2015 SCC OnLine Del 7406.

RFA 128/2019 Page 12 of 17

terms of section 94 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 when language used in a

document is plain in itself and applies to existing facts, no evidence can be given

to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts. Therefore, the Trial Court

has correctly held that the defendants are barred from taking the aforesaid plea

of ‘oral understanding’ or of ‘makeshift arrangement’ as the same is completely

contrary to the written text of the Gift Deed.

34. It was further stated in the written statement that the defendant no.1 did

not hand over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. Since neither

the physical possession was handed over nor the original documents were handed

over, the title in the property continues to vest with the defendant no.1.

35. The aforesaid contention is contrary to the terms of the Gift Deed wherein

it is clearly stated that possession has been handed over to the plaintiff. (Ref.

Clause 2 set out above).

36. The defendants could not show any provision of law to support their

contention that the handing over of the original title deeds or physical possession

of the suit property is a mandatory requirement for making a valid gift.

37. Pertinently, in terms of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

(hereinafter ‘TPA’) the essential requirement for making a gift of an immovable

property is execution of a registered document signed on behalf of the donor and

attested by two witnesses. There is no requirement with regard to physical

delivery of possession or handing over of the original title documents of a

property. This Court, in Mohinder Singh Verma v. JPS Verma and Anr.

11

has

11

2014 SCC OnLine Del 2565.

RFA 128/2019 Page 13 of 17

held that delivery of possession of gifted property is not an essential requirement

for making a valid gift of immovable property. The relevant observations of the

Court in this regard are set out below:

“35. Significantly, Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act while

providing “Transfer how effected”, for gift of immovable property,

prescribes only execution of a registered document by the Donor and does

not prescribe delivery of possession. In fact it has been held by this Court

in Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) R.N. Dawar v. Shri Ganga Saran Dhama AIR 1993

Delhi 19 that mere delivery of possession without registered document

cannot tantamount to gift of immovable property. A Division Bench of the

Punjab & Haryana High Court in Indar Singh v. Nihal Kaur AIR 1968

Punjab & Haryana 495 has held that the rule of Hindu Law that delivery of

possession is essential to the validity of the gift is abrogated by Section 123,

under which deliver of possession is no longer necessary to complete a gift

except in case of movable property. Observations to the said effect can also

be found in Nirshi Dhobin v. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee AIR 1969 SC

864. Section 122, only requires acceptance of the gift on the part of the

Donee and which has been done in the present case by the Donee being a

party to the Gift Deed. The argument raised of possession having not been

delivered is thus misconceived as there is no requirement of delivery of

possession.”

(emphasis supplied)

38. The aforesaid judgment was affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of

this Court in Sahdev Singh Verma vs. JPS Verma

12

. The Trial Court has

correctly placed reliance on the judgment of the Single Bench in Mohinder

Singh Verma v. JPS Verma and Anr.

13

and the Division Bench in Sahdev Singh

12

2015 SCC OnLine Delhi 11654.

13

2014 SCC OnLine Del 2565.

RFA 128/2019 Page 14 of 17

Verma vs. JPS Verma

14

to hold that delivery of possession of gifted property is

not an essential requirement for making a valid gift of immovable property.

39. The defendants have also placed reliance on section 126 TPA to contend

that the Gift Deed had been revoked by the defendants vide communication dated

6

th

December, 2013.

40. As per section 126 TPA, a gift can be suspended or revoked only with a

joint consent of the donor and the donee. The donor cannot unilaterally revoke

the gift by issuance of a letter. In the present case there is no clause in the gift

deed which provides for the revocation of the gift upon breach of a condition.

The language of the gift deed clearly conveys that the same is absolute.

41. The Trial Court has correctly placed reliance on Asokan v. Lakshmi

Kutty

15

, wherein the Supreme Court has held that a gift deed cannot be revoked

under Section 126 TPA for failure of the donee to maintain the donor as there

was no agreement between the parties that the gift could be suspended or revoked

and the revocation could not be dependent on the will of the donor.

42. It is a settled position of law that for having a document cancelled or void,

a declaration has to be given by a competent court of law. Until the document

has been cancelled by a competent court, the duly registered document remains

valid and binds the parties. Reference in this regard may be made to Ramti Devi

v. Union of India

16

.

14

2015 SCC OnLine Delhi 11654.

15

(2007) 13 SCC 210.

16

1995 (1) SCC 198.

RFA 128/2019 Page 15 of 17

43. In the absence of any valid cancellation of the Gift Deed, the Gift Deed

continues to exist and remains binding on the parties. Resultantly, the Will dated

10

th

June, 2015 relied upon by the defendants cannot over cannot supersede or

subsume the rights that have already been granted under the earlier registered

deed. Accordingly, the appellants could not revoke the aforesaid gift deed and

the purported revocation is not in accordance with law.

44. During the course of submissions, counsel for the defendants placed

reliance on section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act to contend that since the plaintiff

did not take care of his father, the defendant no.1 was entitled to cancel the

transfer of property made under the Gift Deed.

45. From a perusal of the Impugned Judgment, it appears that this ground was

never taken before the Trial Court.

46. This court in Charanjeet Singh Ahluwalia vs. Union of India

17

, has held

that the Senior Citizens Act, which came into effect on 29

th

December, 2007,

would not affect the rights of the donee which were created earlier. Hence, the

aforesaid Act would not have any retrospective operation. The relevant

observations of the Court in this regard are set out below:

“13. This Court is in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court

of Kerala. The Act did not intend to disturb the rights of the donee which

has already been created and vested in him. The Legislature is conscious

of the fact that vested rights of the donor are not to be given a retrospective

operation despite the fact that the object of the Act is to provide for

measures for welfare of senior citizens. This is not a case of casus

omissus and this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under

17

2023 SCC OnLine Del 2730.

RFA 128/2019 Page 16 of 17

Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make the provision what the

Legislature did not intend it to be.”

47. Similar view has also been taken by Kerala High Court in Human Rights

and Social Welfare Forum Represented through its Chairman Dr. Vijeesh C

Thilak v. Union of India Representated by Secretary

18

, and Madras High Court

in M.M. Ramesh v. M.S. Manikavasagam

19

.

48. Therefore, the reliance placed by the defendants on Section 23 of the

Senior Citizens Act is misplaced.

49. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the execution and registration of the Gift Deed stand unequivocally admitted

by the defendants. The defences sought to be raised by the defendants are

contrary to the terms of the registered Gift Deed and the contemporaneously

executed GPA, inconsistent with the stand taken by the defendant no.1 in the

earlier suit for cancellation of the Gift Deed, and barred by the provisions of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

50. A Division Bench in P.P.A. Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Mangal Sain Metal

20

, has

held where the defence is in the nature of a moonshine defence and does not raise

any real triable issue, the Court ought not to unnecessarily prolong the litigation

by relegating the parties to trial. A coordinate bench of this Court in Rajeev

Tandon v. Rashmi Tandon

21

, held that admissions for the purposes of Order XII

Rule 6 CPC may be gathered not only from express pleadings but also from the

18

2021 SCC OnLine Ker 12268.

19

2026 SCC OnLine Mad 3006.

20

2009 SCC OnLine Del 3866.

21

2019 SCC OnLine Del 7336.

RFA 128/2019 Page 17 of 17

documents placed on record and from constructive admissions arising out of

vague and evasive denials.

51. The present case squarely falls within the aforesaid legal principles. The

pleas of the defendants are self-contradictory, mutually destructive and do not

disclose any bona fide or triable issue. The Trial Court, therefore, rightly

exercised its jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and decreed the suit.

52. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is

dismissed.

53. Pending applications stand disposed of.

AMIT BANSAL

(JUDGE)

AUGUST 6, 2026

at