The Appellate Court must consider the Trial Court's reasoning and evidence when reversing a decree, as mandated by Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the Judgment dated 27.02.2017 (Decree signed on 18.03.2017) passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Title Appeal No. 50 of 1989 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment dated 27.01.1989 (Decree signed on 07.02.1989) passed by learned Additional Munsiff-II, Giridih in Title Suit No. 152 of 1980/94 of 1985 has been reversed.

3. The title suit was filed seeking declaration of title over the schedule B property and recovery of possession from the defendants through the process of the court. A prayer was also made for decree on account of mesne profit. The Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendants to hand over vacant possession of schedule B property to the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court reversed the judgement and decree.

4. This appeal has been admitted on 15.03.2024 on the following substantial questions of law: -

“(a) Whether the learned appellate court while reversing the judgment passed by the learned trial court was justified in not considering and meeting the reasons given by the learned trial court to decree the suit?

b) Whether the learned appellate court was justified in not considering any oral evidence adduced by the parties?”

Arguments of the appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it was the specific case of the plaintiffs that M/s. Bihar Mines Ltd. had acquired the land and structure mentioned in Schedule-A by the Registered sale deed dated 18.10.1954 and by virtue of registered sale deed dated 04.11.1968 the plaintiffs had purchased 77 decimal of land together with structure thereon being portion of plot no. 669 (Khata No. 29) of village Isri, P.S. Dumri, besides other lands in other plots from M/s. Bihar Mines Ltd. The land and structure purchased by the plaintiffs within plot no. 669 was specified in schedule-A of the plaint.

6. It was their further case that a strip of land measuring 14 ft. 6” x 24 ft. described in schedule-B was part and parcel of aforesaid 77 decimal of land purchased by the plaintiffs from M/s. Bihar Mines Ltd. under aforesaid registered sale deed dated 04.11.1968. The said land was adjacent to south of G.T. Road and in front of the iron gate fixed in the northern wall compound of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the plaint schedule-B property was part of Schedule-A property.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that written statement was filed claiming adverse possession and also title on the basis of registered sale deed with respect to portion of plot no. 669.

8. The learned counsel submits that at the stage of trial, the parties contested the suit and two pleader commissioners report were placed on record. One pleader commissioner was appointed by the order of the Court and other was the report which was privately obtained by the plaintiffs. He has submitted that the learned Trial Court rejected both the pleader commissioner’s report by citing reasons and relied upon oral evidences as well as documents on record to decree the suit.

9. The learned counsel submits the Appellate Court has erroneously recorded that the Trial Court had rejected the pleaders commissioners report appointed by the Court and has relied upon the commissioner’s report which was privately procured by the plaintiffs. He has submitted that the Appellate Court has not at all discussed the oral evidences placed on the record to come to findings and reverse the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

10. The learned counsel submits that the Trial Court having recorded findings taking into consideration both the oral and documentary evidences placed on record, the Appellate Court could not have completely ignored the oral evidences placed on the record and was also not justified in commit