RAJ MOHON DHUPI Vs. HARENDRA CHANDRA MUKHOPADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions are raised in this appeal. The first is whether the plaintiffs have made out any title and the second is whether assuming that title had been so made out, the defendants are entitled to remain on the land and are protected from ejectment by reason of the fact that they are, as they allege, raiyats with rights of occupancy. Upon the question of title the judgment of this Court is impugned on the ground that the learned Judge, whilst holding that certain documents were inadmissible, has yet thought that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court might be affirmed on the ground that besides such documents there was sufficient evidence on the record to justify the conclusions at which the lower Appellate Court had arrived.

(2.) As regards this Mr. Justice Greaves has assumed for the purposes of his judgment that Exhibit H was inadmissible. It does not appear, therefore, whether he was of opinion that the document was admissible or inadmissible. But he has assumed that it was inadmissible in favour of the appellants now before us. As regards the decree it is not quite clear whether or not he considered that document to be inadmissible. There are words in the judgment which seem to support that conclusion, for he says: there is no evidence on the record to show that the land in that suit was held under the same title as the land in the present suit."

(3.) It has, however, been urged that if these documents were inadmissible or were assumed to be such for the purposes of the judgment, this Court which does not deal with fasts could not say what the Subordinate Judge s decision would have been, had he been concerned with the dakhilas alone. I am not prepared to uphold the decision of the Subordinate Judge upon the grounds upon which Mr. Justice Greaves has rested his decision in this respect. I refer to his decision on the question of title. I think, however, that the appeal fails on this issue of title and on the ground, namely, that no objection was taken to the reception of the documents, the admissibility of which is now called in question.