RAMJI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are being decided by a common judgment as the matter is being remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. Appellant Ramji is the Plaintiff who instituted the suit in Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin praying for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession of the suit land. Learned trial Court decreed the suit accepting the prayer made by the Appellant -Plaintiff. The state appealed against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court which was reversed by the learned District Judge. The Plaintiff is now in appeal.

(2.) MY attention has been drawn to the questions of law which have been formulated and on the basis of which the Appellant seeks intervention of this Court. At the time of hearing of the appeals, considering the entire record, the following question was allowed to be urged in terms of the proviso to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Whether the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court can be sustained as it does not assign reasons for reversal of the decree and does not contain a discussion of the entire points of fact and law urged before it?

(3.) IN State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (Dead) through his L.Rs. (2000) 5 SCC 652, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court held: Aggrieved, the State pursued the matter in appeal before the first appellate Court but we find on a close scrutiny of the judgment that there was no due or proper application of mind or any critical analysis or objective consideration of the matter made, despite the same being the first appellate Court. On the other hand, by merely reproducing the findings of the nature adverted to by us, a mechanical affirmation seems to have been made of them without any reference to the principles of law or the criteria to be satisfied before the claim of the Plaintiff of perfection of title by adverse possession could be sustained, involving correspondingly destruction of title of the State in respect of a public property. The first appellate Court further chose to reject the appeal on the ground that the same has not been presented within time even without properly noticing the details as to when the Court closed for summer vacation and when the same was re -opened, on some strange method of reasoning.