Bhikhu Mandal vs Bhikehakar Dutta and others

Adami, J.—The suit giving rise to this second appeal was a suit for recovery of certain lands which previously had been the jote of one Moheswar Banerji. In execution of a deoree against Moheswar, the lands were sold and purohased by one Punchanan in 1899. Punchanan sold the lands to the wife of Moheswar; and, according to the plaintiffs, Biseswari made the purchase farzi on behalf of one of the three sons of Moheswar, namely, Ramsadai. According to the plaintiff''s story, Bamsadai having obtained a deed of relinquishment from Biseswari surrendered the lands to the plaintiffs his landlords in 1325. The plaintiffs took possession but were subsequently dispossessed by the defendant. "The defendant admitted the case of the plaintiffs up to the point where Biseswari Debi purchased from Punchanan; but, according to his case, Biseswari bought as farzidar for her husband Moheswar and the lands devolved, after Biseswaris death, to the three sons of Moheswar. It was asserted that Bamsadai therefore bad no power to surrender the entire lands and contended that the lands in suit were not the lands which had been transferred to Biseswari.

The learned Munsiff in a careful judgment held that the lands in suit were the lands transferred as alleged by the plaintiffs and were included within jote Kachulong. He held further that the purchase by Biseswari was a purchase on behalf of Moheswar and that therefore Moheswar''s three sons would inherit the lands and Ramsadai would not have any power to surrender them to the landlords. He expressed grave doubt as to the bona fide character of the surrender by Bamsadai, thinking it possible that the landlords knowing that they could not obtain the lands by sale had invented a means of obtaining them by getting a release from one of the three brothers.

The learned Subordinate Judge has agreed with the Munsif with regard to the identity of the lands; but, having come to that finding, he proceeds to discuss the other points in the case and that part of his judgment which deals with law. He has taken a view on very scanty, if any, reasons for disagreement. In fact he merely States that from evidence adduced in the case there cannot be any doubt that the disputed land became the property of Bamsadai by virtue of these transfers. But he does not tell us what that evidence is and why that evidence had a different effect in his opinion to the effect which it had in the opinion of the Munsif. He says "Bepin admits in his evidence that whoever will get Kobala will be sole owner." I cannot see how this affects the case. The Kobala was in the hands of Biseswari. Then, later, he says "Bepin''s statement proves plaintiff''s case." He does not tell us what that statement of Bepin is or whether it is to be found in the evidence. Further on he says. "But it has been satisfactorily proved that the other sons had no interest in the rent-paying lands which came to Ramsadai alone by virtue of the deed of release by his mother." The Munsif had found to the contrary and the learned Subordinate Judge has not shown us how the evidence satisfied him in this direction. Further he says that "no fraud or collusion has been proved in respect of the surrender. Here too he does not give any reasons for differing from the Munsif. The portion of his judgment which deals with the points in dispute is in my opinion not a judgment in accordance with law and is certainly of no help to this Court to come to any finding whether the decision he has come to, in short sentences is correct in law. In a judgment of reversal it is absolutely necessary that good grounds should be shown for coming to any finding of fact. The decision of the learned Subordinate Judge may be right but there is not sufficient material in his judgment to show this Court that he has considered the evidence and duly considered the reasons given by the Munsif in his judgment for coming to a contrary decision.

The decree of the lower appellate Court must be set aside and the case must be remanded for a rehearing of the appeal and for judgment according to law. The appellant will get costs in this Court.