SURJA KUMAR ROY CHOUDHRY Vs. KAMAKHYA CHARAN CHATTERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a certain patni tenure had been wrongly split up in the Record of Rights and recorded under a wrong landlord and that two other holdings, of which the plaintiffs are co-sharer landlords, had wrongly been recorded exclusively under the defendants share the main contention of the defendants was that the Record of Rights was correct. The first Court dealt with the case in a lengthly judgment extending over 43 pages, found, in the plaintiffs favour and decreed the suit. The defendants appealed to the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal with costs and upheld the finding of the trial Court.

(2.) Against this order the Defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court. He first of all contends that the judgment is not in accordance with law, because it does not fulfil the conditions required by Order 41, Rule 31. Order 41; Rule 31 requires that a judgment of the appellate Court shall be in writing and shall contain the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. The learned vakil admits that the learned Subordinate Judge has set out the points for determination and the decision thereon and he contends that the learned Subordinate Judge has not stated his own reasons for the decision. What he objects to apparently is that the learned Judge instead of writing a judgment of 43 pages had adopted very largely, as he himself says, the findings and reasons given by the trial Court. No doubt the learned Judge has to some extent adopted the findings and reasons of the first Court; but he has also independently dealt with in his judgment what he described as the salient points. So long as it is clear that the learned Judge in dealing with the appeal has really applied his mind to the case and has come to his judgment independently of the findings and reasonings of the lower Court there is no objection whatever to the Judge's adopting the lower Court's findings and reasonings as his own. As far as I can see. that is what he has done here.

(3.) The learned vakil has referred us in support of his contention to the case of Assanullah v. Hafiz Mahomed Ali [1884] 10 Cal. 952. In that case, however, the only judgment written by the learned Judge consisted of these words: "There is no ground whatever for the appeal." In the present case the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge extends very nearly to two printed pages and he has dealt independently with the salient points. With regard to the other points he has adopted the findings and reasons of the trial Court. I see no objection to the course followed by the learned Judge. When he has independently considered every material point in the case, there is no objection to the learned Judge's adopting the reasons of the trial Court without once more writing down the same reasons at length. (After dealing with other points the judge dismissed the appeal with which decision Page, J. agreed.)