BAZUDDIN Vs. BRIJ MOHAN PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction. Defendant is the respondent who has lost in both Courts below.

(2.) BEING confronted with the situation that the concurrent judgments of two Courts is based on a concurrent finding Shri Sapre rightly suggested that he can only pray for remand. However, in my view, remand is exception and not the rule. Even in second appeal it is necessary to examine if a case for remand is made out and then allow prayer in that regard. This suit was instituted in the year 1974 and almost 20 years are going soon to elapse. Whether the parties to be made to suffer another ordeal is the question which must weigh with me in deciding if remand is warranted or justified.

(3.) THE land, it is admitted case of both sides belonged to Zamindar, Purushottam. His brother Ravishankar gave evidence as P.W. 3. Plaintiff's case is that from Purushottam Gourishankar purchased the land and from him plaintiff's father had purchased the land. Title -deed were proved and the Vendor Gourishankar gave evidence as PW 2. However, his evidence is buttressed too by P.W. 3 who was Gourishankar's Vendor. On the other side, there is evidence only of DW 3 Moyeenuddin the attesting witness of the documents Exs. D -2 and D -3 said to have been executed by Purushottam. The signature on those documents of Purushottam is denied by his brother Ravishankar, PW 2. Both Courts have reached the concurrent finding that the two sale -deeds on which defendant relied/were forged documents.