JUDGMENT:- This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge in Civil Appeal No.57 of 1958, by which he dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsiff in Title Suit No.116 of 1955. The Munsiff had passed a decree against the appellant (defendant) for delivery of possession of the said property to the respondent (plaintiff).

2. The respondent as plaintiff filed the said Title Suit No.116 of 1955 against the appellant in respect of one Lourak of land said to be a part of patta No.70/480 Th. T. belonging to the respondent his case was that he leased the said one lourak to the appellant in 1954 on agreement to pay loushai of 6 pots of paddy, hut that the appellant did not pay loushal and refused to vacate the land. The appellant contended in the written statement that the and which he was in possession of was part of patta No.70/450.Th. T., that it belonged to one Moirangthem Yaima Singh (D.W.1) who had reclaimed it from waste land as early as 1939 and remained in possession until 1952, that the appellant purchased from the said Yaima Singh for Rs.125/- under an unregistered deed dated 17-2-1952, (which was allowed to be marked in the suit as Ext.A/1) and that ever since his purchase he continued in possession and that he has thus perfected title to the land by adverse possession and that the story of the respondent regarding the alleged lease was false.

In the first trial which was held in 1956, the learned Munsiff held that the land in question was part of respondents patta No.70/480-Th. T., but that the case of lease set up by the respondent was not proved. He therefore gave a decree to the respondent for possession, but disallowed the claim for arrears of rent. The learned Munsiff did not give any finding on the plea, of adverse possession taken by the appellant on the ground that it was not pressed before him and so could be taken as waived.

3. The matter was taken in appeal by the appellant in C.A. No.91 of 1956. The learned District Judge - Mr. S.N Banerji, remanded the case to the lower Court. He stated in his judgment in appeal that the appellant stoutly denied that he was in possession of any portion of land under patta No.70/480 and adduced evidence in support of his case, but the Munsiff without giving any reason simply stated that there was sufficient evidence for the respondents allegation that the suit land of one lourak was under the occupation of the appellant. He held that the Munsiff had not framed the issues correctly and had not given any findings on the real matters in controversy between the parties and so he remanded the case. In my opinion, this was a purposeless remand and it was the learned District Judge who had not understood the real matters in controversy between the parties. The appellant and the respondent were agreed that the land in dispute was in the possession of the appellant and so there was no necessity at all to give any finding on that question as the learned District Judge thought. The learned Munsiff had given a finding that the land in dispute was really part of respondents patta No.70/480-Th. T. Thus, the respondents title to the land was proved. But at the same time, on the respondents plea of tenancy, the learned Munsiff had given a finding that it was not proved. It was the duty of the learned District Judge to have decided on the evidence whether that finding of the Munsiff was correct. But no attempt was made by the District Judge to deal with the correctness of that finding. The learned Munsiff had framed issue No.2 on that point, and given his finding. Still, without going into the question, the learned District Judge directed an issue to be raised again on the same point and remanded, it for trial. That was a meaningless remand. A further question would then have arisen whether the respondent would be entitled to a decree for ejectment on his title alone, if the tenancy set up by him was found against. That will de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document