State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and Ors. Vs. Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1139 of 2002
[From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1999 of the High Court of Patna in A.O.D. No. 431/1968]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1999 of the High Court of Patna in A.O.D. No. 431/1968]
Petitioner: State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and Ors.
Respondent: Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1139 of 2002
[From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1999 of the High Court of Patna in A.O.D. No. 431/1968]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1999 of the High Court of Patna in A.O.D. No. 431/1968]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 09, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. R.C. Kohli, (NP), Mr. Ashok Mathur (NP), Advocates for the Respondents.
Mr. R.C. Kohli, (NP), Mr. Ashok Mathur (NP), Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
Practice and Procedure
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 96 – Findings in appeal – Basic issue in suit was if the premises was being used as office or kutchery for collection of rent – High Court holding that the Trial Court’s finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent, cannot be maintained – Yet instead of allowing the appeal by defendant same dismissed. Held that conclusions and findings were not going together. Appeal allowed and suit dismissed.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 96 – Findings in appeal – Basic issue in suit was if the premises was being used as office or kutchery for collection of rent – High Court holding that the Trial Court’s finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent, cannot be maintained – Yet instead of allowing the appeal by defendant same dismissed. Held that conclusions and findings were not going together. Appeal allowed and suit dismissed.
Held:
The High Court held that the Trial Court’s finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent, cannot be maintained. Accordingly, in paragraph-28, the Trial Court’s finding was set aside. If that be so, the only conclusion that could have been arrived at was to allow the appeal. Strangely, the High Court dismissed the appeal, without costs. (Para 4)
The conclusions and the findings do not go together. The High Court’s findings at paragraphs 27 and 28 are clearly to the effect that the suit premises was used as an office or kutchery for collection of rent. As a consequence, the plaintiff’s suit stands dismissed. (Para 5)
The conclusions and the findings do not go together. The High Court’s findings at paragraphs 27 and 28 are clearly to the effect that the suit premises was used as an office or kutchery for collection of rent. As a consequence, the plaintiff’s suit stands dismissed. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and its functionaries.
2. None appears on behalf of the respondents.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No. 431 of 1968. The basic issue involved in the appeal was whether the suit premises was used as an office or kutchery for collection of rent. We find that upto paragraph 25, the Division Bench noted the contentions of the parties and the evidence of the witnesses examined by them. In paragraph-26, the reliability of witnesses examined by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and its functionaries was examined and it was held that they were reliable witnesses. After that, the confusion in the judgment starts. In paragraphs 27 to 29, it has been noted as follows:
’27. On proper analysis of the aforesaid oral evidence of the parties, I come to conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that Raja Bungalow was being used only for residential purpose of Raja at the time of vesting and it was unconnected with either office or Zamindari Kutchery, whereas on the other hand, the contesting defendant was able to prove that the said Bungalow i.e. the suit premises was being used as office-cum-kutchery connected with collection of rent of the Ramgarh Estate.
28. I, therefore, set aside the trial court’s finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent.
29. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs.’
4. A conjoint reading of paragraphs 27 and 28 makes the position clear that the High Court held that the Trial Court’s finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent, cannot be maintained. Accordingly, in paragraph-28, the Trial Court’s finding was set aside. If that be so, the only conclusion that could have been arrived at was to allow the appeal. Strangely, the High Court dismissed the appeal, without costs.
5. The conclusions and the findings do not go together. The High Court’s findings at paragraphs 27 and 28 are clearly to the effect that the suit premises was used as an office or kutchery for collection of rent. In the circumstances, we set aside the conclusion of the High Court about the appeal being without merit. As a consequence, the plaintiff’s suit stands dismissed. The appeal deserves to be allowed in terms of the findings recorded at paragraphs 27 and 28 of the impugned judgment which we direct.
1. Heard learned counsel for the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and its functionaries.
2. None appears on behalf of the respondents.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No. 431 of 1968. The basic issue involved in the appeal was whether the suit premises was used as an office or kutchery for collection of rent. We find that upto paragraph 25, the Division Bench noted the contentions of the parties and the evidence of the witnesses examined by them. In paragraph-26, the reliability of witnesses examined by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and its functionaries was examined and it was held that they were reliable witnesses. After that, the confusion in the judgment starts. In paragraphs 27 to 29, it has been noted as follows:
’27. On proper analysis of the aforesaid oral evidence of the parties, I come to conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that Raja Bungalow was being used only for residential purpose of Raja at the time of vesting and it was unconnected with either office or Zamindari Kutchery, whereas on the other hand, the contesting defendant was able to prove that the said Bungalow i.e. the suit premises was being used as office-cum-kutchery connected with collection of rent of the Ramgarh Estate.
28. I, therefore, set aside the trial court’s finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent.
29. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs.’
4. A conjoint reading of paragraphs 27 and 28 makes the position clear that the High Court held that the Trial Court’s finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent, cannot be maintained. Accordingly, in paragraph-28, the Trial Court’s finding was set aside. If that be so, the only conclusion that could have been arrived at was to allow the appeal. Strangely, the High Court dismissed the appeal, without costs.
5. The conclusions and the findings do not go together. The High Court’s findings at paragraphs 27 and 28 are clearly to the effect that the suit premises was used as an office or kutchery for collection of rent. In the circumstances, we set aside the conclusion of the High Court about the appeal being without merit. As a consequence, the plaintiff’s suit stands dismissed. The appeal deserves to be allowed in terms of the findings recorded at paragraphs 27 and 28 of the impugned judgment which we direct.
