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

                                   [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
              against the judgment of Trial Court. Hence the present E
~
              appeal.
                   Allowing the appeal, the Court
                    HELD: The High Court held that the Trial Court's
              finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office F
              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
  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]
B      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         "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
H
                     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
                         collection of rent.                                                 B

                         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 and 28 are clearly
                    to the effect that the Suit premises was used as an office or
                    Kutchery for collection of rent. In the circumstances, we set aside      E
                    the conclusion of the High Court about the appeal being without
                    merit. As a consequence, the plaintiff's Suit stands dismissed.
                    The appeal deserves to be allowed in terms of the findings
                    recorded at paragraphs 27 and 28 of the impugned judgment
                    which we direct.                                                         F
    """"--'.l       B.B.B.                                             Appeal allowed.




    /           +