The central legal point established in the judgment is the independent status of Bihar Vidyapith as a juridic person under the Registration of Societies Act, which allowed it to acquire property in its own name from its own funds.

S.N.Pathak, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th June, 1986 and decree dated 10th July, 1986, passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Patna, in Title Appeal No. 144 of 1984, reversing the judgment dated 9th August 1984, passed by the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge-III, Patna, in Title Suit No. 60/ 161 of 1966/82.

2. The defendant of the suit is the appellant before this Court.

3. The plaintiff-respondent, known as Bihar Vidyapith had come to the trial Court with the case that Plot No. 591 (wrongly described as Plot No. 581 in the sale-deed dated 8th April, 21 Ext-1/F) and Plot No. 596 belonged to it and so it has sought declaration and title over the aforesaid two plots and confirmation of possession over the same and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession. The defendant-appellant known as Bihar Pradesh Congress Committee (in short, BPCC) had contested the plaintiff-respondents case on the grounds that these two plots were acquired by eminent members of the Congress Party and both the plots are amalgamated at the spot. Plot No. 596 was gifted by one Sheikh Khairuddin to Moulana Mazharul Haque in the year 1917 and Plot No. 591 was under the possession of defendant-appellant with leave and consent of its owner Deo Narayan Raut. The alleged sale-deed on the basis of which the plaintiff-respondent relied is a forged and fabricated document. The Bihar Vidyapith was established by eminent members of Congress Party and it was a wing of BPCC, defendant-appellant, and both the plots were under the adverse possession of the defendant-appellant.

4. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced, dismissed the plaintiff-respondents case. The appellate Court, after a detailed and careful consideration and discussion of the entire gamut of evidence, oral and documentary, reversed the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit and decreed the suit in full against which the defendant-appellant has come up before this Court.

5. The very perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court would show that the evidence on the record indicated clearly and without any ambiguity that Bihar Vidyapith was an independent entity and well registered and recognised under the Registration of Societies Act. So it was a juridic person capable of sueing or being sued, of course, through its Office bearers. The appellate Court discussed various documents and oral evidence and came to the conclusion that this Bihar Vidyapith was an educational Institution having its own funds and paying its teachers the salary from its independent income. The accounts of the Vidyapith were occasionally audited by Chartered Account. It was maintaining Registers and other papers to show that it was running its business independently and its management and control were never exercised by the BPCC. The appellate Court has referred to various sale-deeds acquired in the name of Vidyapith from its own fund and income. So on the basis of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, the appellate Court came to a definite and positive finding that the Vidyapith was an entity independent of the BPCC. The trial Court has ignored all these documents, receipts and the sale-deeds in the name of Vidyapith by a sweeping and general statement that these documents were of no help to establish the cases of either of the parties. Exhibits, such as, letters (Ext-2/B), sale-deeds (Ext-1 series), Cash Book (Ext-5), Pay Register (Ext-6), Result Register (Ext-7), Sankalp Patra (Ext-9) and letter (Ext-10 series) and audit Repot (Ext-11), Electric bills (Ext-12 series), Certified copies of the order-sheets (Ext-13 and 13/a) were the documents referred to by the appellate Court to show that the Vidyapith was running its own business independently and was acquiring lands in its own name, from its own fund. So the findings recorded by the appellate Court on the basis of evidence of ten witnesses and the documents referred to above were findings of fact and