LACHMI NARAIN DAS Vs. HIRDEY NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before this Court were the first two defendants in the Court below and were described as the principal defendants. The respondents other than the Respondent No. 9 were the plaintiffs. The Respondent No. 9 was described as the pro forma defendant. The plaintiffs brought the suit for recovery of a certain amount of money said to be payable by the principal defendants and in the case of their failure to pay the plaintiffs claimed possession over the property in suit. The property in suit may be briefly described as the village of Chandoi, though only a certain share in the village is in dispute. The allegations in the plaint were traversed by the principal defendants who called upon the plaintiffs to prove their case. They also raised a point of law, viz. the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain the suit on the allegations made in the plaint. The learned Judge in the Court below did not decide the questions of fact involved in the case. He decided the question of law in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the claim. In this Court the first four of the grounds of appeal are taken against the procedure of the Court below and point out that the plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence to establish their claim.

(2.) We called upon the respondents counsel to explain under what circumstances the Court below felt itself justified in edecreeing the suit without going into the facts involved. The learned Counsel failed to satisfy us on the point. It appears to us that, with the consent of the parties, the point of law was allowed to be discussed as a preliminary point and the Court forgot that it had not tried the case on the facts. It is obvious therefore that in the case of the question of law being decided in the respondents favour the case will have to go back for trial on the merits.

(3.) It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that they have a good case on the question of law and that, in any case, the question of law should not be left over to be decided again after a decision on the questions of fact. We heard counsel for the parties on the question of law. For the decision of the question of law, we shall take the facts stated in the plaint to be as they are described and shall see whether on those facts the present suit could be maintained.