PRADIP SINGH Vs. AMBIKA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals wore originally heard by two learned Judges of this Court but as they differed upon the applicability of the provisions of the Registration Act to certain hukumnamas, the entire appeals have been referred to me by the learned Chief Justice for disposal under Rule 5, chap. 2, part 1 of the Patna High Court Rules.

(2.) When the appeals were argued before me it appeared on a perusal of the judgments of the Courts below that besides the hukumnamas, there was other evidence, both oral and documentary, which enabled the Courts below to come to the conclusion that there was commutation of rent of the holdings in suits. Accordingly, I asked the learned advocate for the appellants and the respondents to satisfy me whether in the face of these clear findings it was still necessary to decide the point of law on which the learned Judges differed. The learned advocates agreed that even if the hukumnamas were inadmissible on account of non-registration, there was other evidence in the case which supported the finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below.

(3.) I have read and re-read the judgments of the two learned Judges and the judgments of the Courts below, and I have also read and reread the entire evidence in the case, and I am compelled to take the view that the question of law upon which the learned Judges differed does not really arise for decision in the present case, and accordingly I do not decide that question which is academic for the purpose of these appeals.