MOKHADA DASI Vs. LAKSHMI NARAIN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge reversing the decision of the Munsif with regard to certain property being about 60 bighas of land, and in the result the question to be determined was whether Haricharan, the father of the mother of the plaintiffs, had been in adverse possession.

(2.) In the first instance those claiming through Haricharan, who were the shebaits of the deity, set up a case that the land had been purchased by Haricharan in the benami name of his daughter, but on the findings of the learned Judge in the Court below that plea has not been sustained. As I say and repeat, in the result the question came to be determined whether Hari Charan was in adverse possession. There is a long history attached to the property since 1889 when the property was first purchased, and there is no doubt that whatever view this Court may take of the evidence, it will be impossible for this Court in second appeal to say or for the learned advocate appearing on be-half of the parties to argue that there was no evidence upon which the learned Judge in the Court below could come to the conclusion that Haricharan was in adverse possession and indeed Sir Manmatha Nath Mukherji who appears on behalf of the defendant-appellants does not contend that there was no evidence, but on behalf of his clients contends that the learned Judge in reversing the decision of the trial Court had omitted to mention the most important piece of evidence, and that evidence is no less than the Record of Rights and it was upon that record that the learned Judge of the trial Court, at any rate to some extent, had relied.

(3.) Now, it has been laid down on many occasions by a number of Divisional Court decisions of this Court that it is impossible to hold that a judgment cannot be sustained merely by reason of the fact that certain items of evidence have not been mentioned. It is perfectly obvious in this case that the Record of Rights must have been mentioned to the learned Subordinate Judge unless I were to hold that the advocate who appeared in the Court below on the part of the defendants neglected his duty, and, following the decisions of this Court, it is impossible for me to say that the learned Judge not only made no statement in his judgment regarding the record but also shut out from his mind any consideration of it. But it is not upon that, that I decide the case.