RAJANI KANT MUKERJI Vs. RAM DULAL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals were heard by our learned predecessors on this Bench. On consideration, they desired to hear argument on a point which was not discussed before them, namely, whether the suit was barred by Article 46 of the Limitation Schedule. They were not able, however, to hear this point argued, before one of them left the Court on leave. The appeal has accordingly been re-heard by us in full.

(2.) The lands in suit in the present cases are situated in Char Khandkar. It appears that this mehal was let in farm from 1289 to 1298. It was again let in farm for 1299 and again for 1300. Prom 1301 to 1305, it was kept in the direct possession of Government, and it was again let in farm in 1306. The farmers in 1295 settled a holding known as No. 63 with the plaintiffs. But it is alleged by the plaintiffs that in the Settlement proceedings of 1301, a portion of the lands covered by No. 63 was excluded from that holding. They complained to the Settlement Officer who, however, seems to have wholly or almost wholly rejected their claim. The order runs: "The lands recorded by amins, as comprised in jote No. 63, consist of the hasil lands in their possession, and about 500 bighas of laikabad, the remainder being malany. These lands I consider sufficient, and I order that in the names of the five man in paragraph 2 (i.e, the present plaintiffs) be recorded all those lands. I also hereby reject their claims to any other land." It would also seem from the proceedings: that the bulk of the lands, for which the plaintiffs claims were rejected, was claimed as accretion. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs claim now is that the lands which they unsuccessfully claimed were part of their holding and were wrongly included in the defendants holdings. They served Government with notice of a suit under Section 424 of the then Civil Procedure Code, and Government finding that the order for the inclusion of the land in the defendants holdings was wrong, cancelled it in 1311. The defendants, however, dispossessed the plaintiffs and hence this suit. It has been found, however, that the defendants, have been in possession since 1301.

(3.) The Munsif decreed the suit by what the learned District Judge rightly calls a long discursive rambling judgment. We may take this opportunity of expressing our concurrence with the learned District Judge s condemnation of the practice, now not unusual, of dealing with all the issues in a case together. The whole object of framing issues is to keep the various points arising for decision separate and distinct and to lump them all up together in the judgment defeats the object of the law and cannot but lead to confusion. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground that the settlements with the defendants were valid and, consequently, could not be extinguished by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appeal to this Court.