Playoffs | The Harvard Sports Analysis Collective
in kink than ever. Learn the best way to incorporate kink into your relationship. Into Your Relationship. February 2, by Dr. NerdLove Comments. Published online May doi: [/mBio] .. S8 for its abundance), which was detected in 36 giant panda samples, showed a close relationship with Clostridium sartagoforme, a chitinolytic .. NFL, near full length. .. Renault P, ANR MicroObes Consortium, Doré J, Zucker JD, Clément K, Ehrlich SD. 2, pm ET), czechbattlefield.info super-bowl . ness of the relationship between the arbitrator and the party the arbitrator is alleged to favor The third ANR Coal Co., Inc. v.
Accession numbers of reference sequences from the Greengenes database are noted in parentheses. The abundance range, abundance median of only samples in which the respective OTU was detectedand the prevalence of each OTU among the giant panda samples are listed in square brackets.
It lives on a bamboo-dominated diet at present, but it still retains a typical carnivorous digestive system and is genetically deficient in cellulose-digesting enzymes. To find out whether this endangered mammalian species, like other herbivores, has successfully developed a gut microbiota adapted to its fiber-rich diet, we conducted a 16S rRNA gene-based large-scale structural profiling of the giant panda fecal microbiota.
Significant intraindividual variations in the diversity and structure of gut microbiota across seasons were observed in this population, which were even greater than the variations between individuals. Compared with published data sets involving gut microbiota profiles from 54 mammalian species, these giant pandas, together with 9 captive and 7 wild individuals investigated previously, showed extremely low gut microbiota diversity and an overall structure that diverged from those of nonpanda herbivores but converged with those of carnivorous and omnivorous bears.
Members of the class Clostridia were common and abundant in the giant panda gut microbiota, but most of the members present were absent in other herbivores and were not phylogenetically related with known cellulolytic lineages. Therefore, the giant panda appears not to have evolved a gut microbiota compatible with its newly adopted diet, which may adversely influence the coevolutionary fitness of this herbivore.
Unlike other herbivores that have successfully evolved anatomically specialized digestive systems to efficiently deconstruct fibrous plant matter, the giant panda still retains a gastrointestinal tract typical of carnivores. We characterized the fecal bacterial communities from a giant panda population to determine whether this animal relies on its symbiotic gut microbiota to cope with the complex carbohydrates that dominate its diet, as is common in other herbivores.
We found that the giant panda gut microbiota is low in diversity and highly variable across seasons. It also shows an overall composition typical of bears and entirely differentiated from other herbivores, with low levels of putative cellulose-digesting bacteria. The gut microbiota of this herbivore, therefore, may not have well adapted to its highly fibrous diet, suggesting a potential link with its poor digestive efficiency.
However, highly fibrous bamboo leaves and stems dominate its diet, with the addition of fresh, soft bamboo shoots in spring and summer. This dietary switch was probably associated with several mutations in the giant panda genome, including the pseudogenization of the umami taste receptor gene T1R1 since about 4. Most herbivores have evolved an elongated foregut or hindgut to lengthen gut retention times of otherwise indigestible plant polysaccharides, mostly cellulose and hemicellulose.
Despite the dietary switch, the giant panda did not evolve any enzymes for bamboo digestion, and it still retains all necessary enzyme homologs for a carnivorous digestive system 6. Therefore, the giant panda appears to have no alternative but to rely on symbiotic gut microbes to adapt to its highly fibrous diet 6. Previous studies have suggested that the diversity, structure, and function of the mammalian gut microbiome are mainly shaped by adaptation to diet 14— In contrast, the gut microbiota of omnivores and carnivores, particularly within the mammalian order Carnivora, are dominated by the facultative anaerobes Enterobacteriaceae and Enterococcus 21 For the giant panda, Enterobacteriaceae and Streptococcus have been identified as predominant members of its gut microbiota by traditional culture-dependent methods 23— 25 and 16S rRNA gene clone library analysis Metagenomic sequencing of three fecal samples from wild giant pandas identified cellulolytic genes, suggesting that the giant panda gut microbiome might be capable of digesting cellulose in its bamboo diet To elucidate whether the giant panda with its carnivorous digestive system has evolved a gut microbiota adapted to its herbivorous diet, we performed a large-scale dynamic structural profiling of fecal samples from cub, juvenile, and adult giant panda populations across three seasons and compared this data set with those of other herbivores, omnivores, and phylogenetically related carnivores 141617 We found that the giant panda harbors a carnivore-like gut microbiota with poor diversity and extensive seasonal variations.
Bar-coded pyrosequencing of the V3 region of bacterial 16S rRNA genes generated a data set consisting of 97, reads. Although the OTU-level rarefaction curves did not reach stable values see Fig. S1A to D in the supplemental materialthe Shannon diversity index, which considers both the microbial richness and evenness, plateaued in all samples, indicating that although additional rare phylotypes would likely be detected by deeper sequencing, most of the microbial diversity present in these fecal samples had already been captured at the current sequencing depth see Fig.
Across all the samples, In the Additional Written Statement filed by the Defendants 4 to 6, it is averred as follows: The agreement of sale is not true and is denied. It is a created document to snatch the suit item from the 1st Defendant. There is no such stamp vendor and that the stamp papers were not purchased on that date.
The Plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands. The properties were agreed to be sold earlier and on The 1st Defendant had sent a reply to the notice of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had filed the suit suppressing the real facts. Hence, the suit has to be dismissed. Before the Trial Court, the case against the Defendants 2 and 3 was dispensed with by the Plaintiff.
Tag - Playoffs
The Trial Court, after framing necessary issues on the above pleadings, on the side of the Plaintiff, examined PW. A1 to A24 and on the side of the Defendants, examined DW. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance and the Defendants 1, 4 to 6 were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of the decree and the appeals filed by the 1st Defendant and the Defendants 4 to 6, as against the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court, were dismissed by the lower appellate court.
Hence, this Second Appeal has been filed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended as under: The courts below erred in decreeing the suit for specific performance based on the forged sale agreement under Ex.
There is variation in signature of the first defendant in Ex. A1 Will and Ex. The genuineness of the stamp paper used for the execution of Ex. A2 had been proved to be false by Exs. B1 and B2 Official records produced from the Treasury for the sale of stamps. The registration of the Will, dated 7. A2 sale agreement, which includes the suit property, clearly falsifies the case of the plaintiff. The inclusion of the suit property in the Will, which was registered on 8.
A2 clearly disproves the existence of any sale agreement. The plaintiff has no means to pay the sale price of Rs. The learned Principal District Judge having found that the defendants 4 to 6 are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the alleged suit agreement under Ex.
A2, erred in decreeing the suit. The learned Principal District Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that the defendants 4 to 6 had already entered into sale agreements as early as on The learned Principal District Judge had failed to note that the execution of a document alone is attracted under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, since the registration of the same is only a procedural requirement of the authorities.
Since the sale deeds have been executed on In support of her contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following decisions: Avadiappa Pathar and three others 1 SCC Kishna Gowda and others 9 SCC Akki Guru Basappa and another vs.
Ittianam and others vs. Cherichi alias Padmini 8 SCC Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that when the courts below have given concurrent findings and decreed the suit for specific performance, the Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. The learned Senior Counsel has further contended that the courts below considering the fact that the first defendant had accepted her signature in Ex.
Defiant Tom Brady vows to blitz NFL with appeal of suspension in deflategate
A2 sale agreement, in her evidence, and also considering the other evidences of P. The learned Senior Counsel has argued that already when the sale agreement came into existence, the execution of another sale agreement and deeds would not bind the plaintiff.
In support of his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions: Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Navaneethammal and another 4 SCC Manik Roy and others 2 CTC Har Narain Dead by Lrs.
Mam Chand Dead by Lrs. Chokalingaswami Idol through its hereditary Trustee R. Gnanapragasam Dead by Lrs. Lakshmi Ammal D through Lrs.
I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the materials available on record. The only point to be decided is, whether the alleged sale agreement, dated The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant is the owner of the suit property and that she entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant on Since the plaintiff had paid the entire amount, the time was not treated as the essence of contract. Further, as there was a cordial relationship with the first defendant, she had not shown much interest in the execution of the sale deed.
On the other hand, it is denied by the first defendant that the she had executed the sale agreement on It is also the case of the first defendant that she entered into separate agreements to sell the portions of the suit property on However, they were registered on A perusal of the records reveals that the first defendant had executed a Will on 7.
Though the first defendant had bequeathed the properties mentioned in the Schedule of the registered Will, she had retained the houses situated at Somangalam and Tiruvallur for her own purpose. The plaintiff had claimed that she had purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs.
In the written statement filed by the first defendant, it is stated as under: It is denied that the plaintiff paid Rs. Further, in respect of the plaintiff's means, the first defendant has stated in her written statement as under: The plaintiff was not possessed of any property or income. Her husband who is employed in the revenue department was having disrupted service. The plaintiff is silent as to when exactly the alleged sale consideration of Rs.
Nor the alleged agreement is clear in this aspect. In respect of the sale of the suit property to the defendants 4 to 6, the following are the averments in the written statement: The plaintiff and her husband were aware of the same.
This defendant entered into separate agreements to sell the portions of the suit property on Due to ill health of the defendant, the sale deeds could not be registered immediately. Later on the sale deeds were presented for registration on A perusal of the averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant and her evidence clearly shows that she had not executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff and did not receive any amount towards sale consideration and till the receipt of the notice, she did not know about the sale agreement and the alleged sale agreement was seen only in the court and executed the sale agreements and sale deeds in favour of the defendants 4 to 6 and it is also categorically stated that the plaintiff did not have any means to pay such huge amount.
That apart, naturally, a doubt is arising with regard to the execution of the alleged sale agreement. Though the Will has been executed on 7. When the first defendant had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff and her husband Gopala Iyer and one Ragunathan in respect of her properties except the houses situated at Tiruvalluvar and Somangalam, this Court is at a loss to understand, how the first defendant, even before the registration of the Will, could execute the sale agreement in respect of the suit property for consideration and even assuming for the sake of argument, if she had intended to execute the sale agreement, she would have deleted the house property situated at Tiruvalluvur from the schedule of the Will.
But a perusal of the Will shows that the house property of Tiruvallur is shown as item No. This aspect has also been averred in the written statement filed by the first defendant, which is as under: Had it been true the suit property would have been deleted from the will this aspect would prove that the alleged sale agreement is an after thought and creation to grab the suit property. When the first defendant had decided to execute the registered Will in respect of her properties, in favour of the plaintiff, her husband and her brother, nothing would have been prevented her from selling the suit property to the plaintiff, if she so desires.
But that has not been done, as she had no intention to sell the property to the plaintiff or she would have made any whisper in the registered Will. A perusal of the alleged sale agreement under Ex. A2 also reveals that the stamp affixed on the stamp papers bearing different date and the date of execution is different. The stamp papers originally purchased in the month of Oct and in the year The name of the purchaser of the stamp papers are also erased and the name of the plaintiff has been written.
These are all to show that the alleged agreement is a forged and concocted one and the same has not been explained by the plaintiff in the manner known to law. The signatures of this defendant have been unscrupulously forged. Even the strokes and alphabets are different.
A closer look of the alleged agreement would show that the stamp papers have been manipulated by erasing the name of the initial purchaser and substitution of the name of the plaintiff. The date of stamp papers have been corrected distinctly by a different person other than the stamp vendor. In the additional written statement filed by the defendants 4 to 6, it is averred as under: In addition, the stamp papers were not purchased on the date they bear.
The name of the purchaser of the stamps also is seen erased and the name of plaintiff is written. The date of purchase of stamps are also tampered with. Therefore, the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and the relief prayed for being discretionary should be denied and this suit is dismissed. Further, a perusal of Exs.
From the above, it is very clear that Ex. A2 is a forged and concocted one and it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove that Ex. A2 is true and valid, but such burden of proof has not been discharged by the plaintiff in the manner known to law by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The Courts below have also not considered this aspect in a proper perspective. The production of stamp register through D.
B1 and B2 clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff had manipulated the stamp papers to file the suit. Though the trial court had referred to Exs. When the veracity of the Ex. B1 and B2 corroborates the same, the Courts below should have accepted and considered the same.
In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent has relied on the decisions in Thiruvengadam Pillai vs. Santhanam Chettiar and another II CTCand the principles laid down are only applicable to the persons, who have approached the Court with clean hands and not otherwise. Since this Court is of view that the first respondent has not approached the Court with clean hands, she is not entitled for any kind of relief. The above aspects would clearly show that Ex.
Now, another question comes to the fore that the execution of the sale deeds by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 4 to 6 would hit by the principle of lis pendens? B3 sale agreement was executed by the first respondent in favour of D4 in respect of the suit property.
B6 is the sale agreement, which was executed by the first defendant in favour of D6 in respect of the suit property. B7 is the sale deed, which was executed by the first defendant in favour of D6 in respect of the suit property and the same was registered on The suit was filed on 8.
The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent vehemently contended that the sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of D4 and D6 in respect of the suit property would hit by the principle of lis pendens as the sale deed was executed only on Further, the learned Senior Counsel has contended that on the date of filing of the suit, the property had not passed to the appellant inasmuch as the sale deed was not registered and that the registration of the sale deed, subsequent to the filing of the suit, amounted to a transfer of the property in the suit and therefore, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to the case on hand.
On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that a document creating title in immovable property executed before the date of filing of the suit but registered afterwards was not affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. In support of her contention, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision in Akki Guru Basappa and another vs. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court has elaborately discussed and rendered as under: The only point raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is "Is a sale deed executed before but registered after the filing of a suit affected by the doctrine of Us pendens?
The contention of Mr. Narasimhachari for the appellant is that on the date of the filing of the plaint, the property had not passed to the plaintiff inasmuch as the sale deed was not registered and that the registration of the sale deed, subsequent to the filing of the plaint, amounted to a transfer of the property in suit and therefore Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to the case.
In the case of a conveyance or a document creating title to immoveable property registration is necessary to give validity to such document but the question is whether a document creates title from the date of its execution or whether it creates title only from the date of its registration. Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act makes it clear that " a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.
It is not the registration of a document which operates to create title but it is the document itself. The Registration Act makes valid such documents as soon as they are registered but the right conveyed or transferred is the right which exists in the transferor on the date of the document. When the document is presented for registration the executant simply admits execution whereupon the document is registered and if the executant does not admit execution or if he refuses to appear before the Registrar the law provides for compulsory registration of the document.
In such a case it cannot be said that the executant by any act of his gives validity to the document. Narasimhachari is that a sale can be effected only by a registered instrument and that before the date of registration there was no sale and therefore the suit which was filed before the date of registration does stand in the way of the executant registering the document.
This argument overlooks the fact that the vendee has a right to compel a vendor to execute a sale deed in his favour and if he refuses to ask the Court to execute the document.
If a document has already been executed, he could present it for registration within four months and if no document had been executed he could sue for specific performance of the contract of sale.
Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property "Act any transfer or other dealing with the property in a suit or proceeding is affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. Mere registration of the document cannot be said to be a transfer of the property or dealing with the property in suit.