CHHAGANMAL MARWARI Vs. INDRA KEOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Puruliai affirming the decision of the Munsif by which the suit of the plaintiffs for ejectment of the respondent was dismissed. The plaintiffs appear to be the recent purchasers of the plot in dispute which is a very small area in the town of Purulia.

(2.) The real contention between the parties was, after titled of the plaintiffs had been fully established, whether the defendant was not liable to be ejected inasmuch as he alleged that he had acquired a permanent right to reriiain on the land. The learned Munsif has written an elaborate judgment and has also noticed several possible pieces of evidence, oral and documentary, in this case and he sums up his finding under seven headings. He came to the conclusion, on a consideration of the facts which he had found and on applying the law thereto, that the defendant was not liable to be ejected.

(3.) The learned District Judge in a very summary judgment has dismissed the appeal and I am not satisfied from a perusal of the judgment of the learned District Judge that he has clearly applied his mind to the evidence in the case. The evidence is of somewhat complicated character and extends over a large number of years. I get no indication from the judgment whether he has taken the trouble to peruse the various documents some of which were said to be registered, nor does the judgment show that he has considered the effect of various documents which are being freely referred to as documents of transfer.