STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) AND ORS. versus BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 09-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 6 S.C.R. 331 
t 
STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1139 of 2002) 
APRIL 09, 2008 
B 
~ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND 
~ 
AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Appeal - High Court dismissed appeal even after setting 
aside the findings recorded by Trial Court- Propriety of- Held: c 
Not proper - Conclusions and findings of the High Court did 
not go together - The appeal deserved to be allowed. 
Disputes arose as to whether the premises in 
question (Raja Bunglow) was being used for residential 
purpose of the Raja at the time of vesting or as a office-
D 
cum-kutchery for collection of rent of the Ramgarh Estate. 
* 
The High Court set aside the Trial Court's finding that 
the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery 
for collection of rent, and yet thereafter dismissed appeal E 
against the judgment of Trial Court. Hence the present 
~ 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court held that the Trial Court's 
F 
finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office 
" 
or kutchery for collection of rent, cannot be maintained. 
Accordingly, the Trial Court's finding was set aside. If that 
be so, the only conclusion that could have been arrived 
at was to allow the appeal. Strangely, the High Court 
dismissed the appeal, without costs. The conclusions and G 
the findings do not go together. The High Court's findings 
are clearly to the effect that the suit premises was used 
... 
as an office or kutchery for collection of rent. In the 
circumstances, the conclusion of the High Court about 
331 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008) 6 S.C.R. 
A the appeal being without merit is set aside. As a 
.. • 
consequence, the plaintiff's suit stands dismissed. The 
B 
appeal deserves to be allowed in terms of the findings 
recorded in the impugned judgment of High Court. 
[Paras 4, 5] [333-B, C, D, E] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1139 
of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1999 of the 
High Court of Patna in A.O.D. No. 431/1968. 
C 
Ratan Kumar Choudhuri for the Appellants. 
R.C. Kohli, (NP), Ashok Mathur (NP) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned counsel for the 
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and its functionaries. 
2. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No.431 of 1968. 
E The basic issue involved in the appeal was whether the suit 
premises was used as an office or kutchery for collection of 
rent. We find that upto paragraph 25, the Division Bench noted 
the contentions of the parties and the evidence of the witnesses 
examined by them. In paragraph-26, the reliability of witnesses 
F 
examined by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and its 
functionaries was examined and it was held that they were 
reliable witnesses. After that, the confusion in the judgment starts. 
In paragraphs 27 to 29, it has been noted as follows: 
G 
H 
"27. On proper analysis of the aforesaid oral evidence of 
the parties, I come to conclusion that the plaintiff failed to 
prove that Raja Bung low was being used only for residential 
purpose of Raja at the time of vesting and it was 
unconnected with either office of Zamindari Kutchery, 
whereas on the other hand. the contesting defendant was 
STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) AND ORS. v. 
333 
BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD. AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 
' 
A 
able to prove that the said Bungalow i.e. the suit premises 
A 
/ 
was being used as office-cum-kutchery connected with 
collection of rent of the Ramgarh Estate. 
28. I, therefore, set aside the trial Court's finding that the 
suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for 
B 
collection of rent. 
29. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but 
without costs." 
4. A conjoint reading of paragraphs 27 and 28 makes the 
position clear that the High Court held that the Trial Court's finding c 
that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for 
collection of rent, cannot be maintained. Accordingly, in 
paragraph-28, the Trial Court's finding was set aside. If that be 
so, the only conclusion that could have been arrived at was to 
allow the appeal. Strangely, the High Court dismissed the 
D 
appeal, without costs. 
~· 
5. The conclusions and the findings do not go together. 
The High Courts' findings at paragraphs 27 an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.