Brajnandan Saroop Bhatnagar vs Sangram Yadava and Others

Hon''ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4th March, 1989.

A suit for eviction was filed on the ground that the defendants happen to be the licencee and their licences were terminated by way of notice which was duly served. The said suit was decreed. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal which was allowed on the ground that no specific and clear-cut finding with regard to the ownership has been recorded by the Munsiff in the Suit, therefore, it was felt necessary to remand the matter and thus remanded the matter to the trial court.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellate court has misdirected itself and there is no right of the defendants over the land and there is also clear-cut finding in regard to the ownership and once the finding regarding the owner ship of the land has been recorded, then the order passed by the appellate court becomes inoperative. It is also submitted that the question regarding ownership of nazul land does not arise in this case.

The Court has perused the issue no. 8 which was framed to the effect that as to whether the disputed land is situated in plot nos. 2473, 2474 and 2475 and whether the defendants were the owners of the said land. It is to be noted that after submission of the Survey Commission report, it came to light that the land on which the defendants were residing, was the part and parcel of plot no. 2614. The trial court while deciding the issue no. 1, did not adjudicate the aforesaid particular fact and left it to be decided. The appellate court came to the conclusion that it was necessary to decide the aforesaid fact that as to on which part of the land the defendants were residing and in fact whether the disputed land comprised in plot nos. 2473, 2474 and 2475. After going through the evidence on record, the appellate court found that it was necessary that finding should be recorded in regard to the ownership and exact position of the disputed land and had rightly remanded the matter.

I have perused the impugned order and I find that it is in consonance with the law and after the perusal of the finding recorded in respect of issue no.8 by the Munsiff, it is apparent that no clear-cut finding in regard to ownership and the exact position of the disputed land has been recorded, therefore, the appellate court has committed no error while remanding the matter to the trial court.

Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision reported in Parimal Vs. Veena @ Bharti, wherein it has been held as under:

The first appellate court should not disturb and interfere with the valuable rights of the parties which stood crystallized by the trial court''s judgment without opening the whole case for rehearing both the question of facts and law and recorded reasons for its decision.

The trial court in its judgment has not decided the title and neither the same has crystallized, therefore, the aforesaid case law has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case.

The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is directed that the trial court will decide the case expeditiously on priority basis being an old case.