BOGAMAL GOHAIN Vs. LAKHINATH KALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants 1 and 2 herein were defendants in a suit filed by the respondent No.1 as plainfiff in the Court of the Munsiff, North Lakhimpur. That suit was numbered as Title Suit No.13 of 1979. The relief claimed in that suit was permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit was decreed which was affirmed in appeal. The decree was also executed.

(2.) Despite the decree of permanent injunction, the appellants (the defendants in that suit) dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, C.P.C. as well as a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession and compensation against the defendants. The suit was numbered as Title Suit No.55 of 1979 in the Court of Munsiff, North Lakhimpur. It was contested by the defendants on a number of grounds including res judicata. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as 7 issues were framed. A number of witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties. The trial Court decided all the seven issues on the basis of evidence of the witnesses and material on record and in the light of the findings thereon, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the suit land. It was also held that the defendants entered into the suit land after the decree was executed. The issue regarding res judicata was also decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was accordingly decreed. The decree was affirmed on appeal. The defendants have come up in second appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. B.P. Kataky, learned counsed for the appellants submits that the judgment of the first appellate Court is not tenable in law inasmuch as the learned Court did not decide the various issues raised by the appellants for determination. The appeal was disposed of only on one point that is res judicata as according to the court that was the substantial point for determination in that appeal. None of the other grounds were discussed nor any decision was given thereon. This according to the learned counsel, has vitiated the appellate order. Reliance is placed in this connection on the provisions of O. 41 R. 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure.