Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 221 (GAU)

H. Lalsangliana v. Lalbiakliani

2012-02-17

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl district in RFA No. 12/2011. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, may be noticed at the very outset. One Lalbiakliani alongwith one Lalberemi borrowed Rs. 4 lakhs from H. Lalsangliana on 24.7.2007 with compound interest at the rate of 9% per month. She promised to repay the said money and mortgaged her LSC No. 1534/1984 with the said H. Lalsangliana on the condition that if she failed to repay the money within time, she would lose her property. They then lent the money tot one Vanlalruata with the same interest rate to be repaid within two months. As they failed to repay the money, H. Lalsangliana by virtue of the aforesaid promise, became the owner of the said LSC and also got the said LSC mutated in his name. After sometime, Lalbiakliani was requested by H. Lalsangliana to vacate the property. 3. This led to a dispute between them which resulted in the filing of Money Suit No. 22/2008. 4. Considering the nature of the dispute, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, which was thereafter registered as LA Case No. 15/2008. 5. The Lok Adalat assessed the amount due at Rs. 10, 31, 040.00 and passed an award on 29.05.2008 in the following terms- Vanlalruata, the third party, would repay Rs. 10, 31, 040.00 to Lalbiakliani and Lalberemi, who in turn shall pay the said amount to H. Lalsangliana. On receipt of the said money, H. Lalsangliana would return the LSC to Lalbiakliani. 26.06.2008 was the date fixed for compliance of the aforesaid award. 6. But on 26.06.2008, the third party i.e., Vanlalruata did not appear before the Lok Adalat and as a result, the whole award collapsed. 7. Thereafter, H. Lalsangliana filed Eviction Suit No. 2/2009 against Lalbiakliana in the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl district. Lalbiakliani filed her written statement and contested the suit. 8. On consideration of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues- 1. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for the suit 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style as an eviction suit 3. Whether the alleged 'Deed of Agreement Dt. Lalbiakliani filed her written statement and contested the suit. 8. On consideration of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues- 1. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for the suit 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style as an eviction suit 3. Whether the alleged 'Deed of Agreement Dt. 24/7/'07 in between the plaintiff and the defendant is valid or not 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to possess/hold the LSC No. Azl. 1534 of 1984 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle decree of eviction against the defendant. 9. Both the sides adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. The learned trial court on consideration of the evidence on record, by a detailed judgment and order dated 10.11.2010 decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff H. Lalsangliana. Accordingly, the learned trial court decreed the suit by ordering eviction of the defendant Lalbiakliani from the suit land. 10. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.11.2010 of the learned trial court, the defendant preferred an appeal before learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl district, which was registered as RFA No. 12/2011. The lower appellate court by a very cryptic judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. The decision of the learned lower appellate court as expressed in paragraph 5 of the appellate judgment is as under :- ......5. On consideration of the above facts and circumstances, it seems to me that it is not proper to direct the appellant to evict her land and the building thereon without directing Vanlalruata to deposit or to repay the debt per agreement signed by the parties in the said Money Suit before the Lok Adalat and the impugned judgment and order is set aside accordingly. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal. 12. Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. Also heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant. 13. This court by the order dated 11.11.2011 had admitted the appeal and had framed 2(two) substantial questions of law which are as under:- (1) Whether the Award dt.29-5-2008 passed by the Lok Adalat debars the appellant from filing the Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2011. Also heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant. 13. This court by the order dated 11.11.2011 had admitted the appeal and had framed 2(two) substantial questions of law which are as under:- (1) Whether the Award dt.29-5-2008 passed by the Lok Adalat debars the appellant from filing the Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2011. (2) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in coming to its finding without considering the submissions of the parties or the materials available on record 14. Considering the nature of the judgment in appeal passed by the learned lower appellate court, it is deemed appropriate to take up the question No. 2 first. 15. As has already been noted above, the appellate judgment and order is a non-speaking one, devoid of any reasons. From a reading of the said judgment, it does not appear that the learned lower appellate court had considered the evidence and the other materials on record and applied its mind before passing the said judgment. 16. The Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRS Vs. A. Ramalingam reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240 has held that it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate court that the court has properly appreciated the facts and evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the materials on record. The Apex Court has held that it is mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final court of fact, the first appellate court must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial court. The entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all the issues of law and fact. This is more so in a case where the judgment of the trial court is reversed by the first appellate court. 17. Considering the above, I am of the view that the judgment of the first appellate court dated 09.08.2011 is not a judgment in the eye of law. Accordingly, the question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. 17. Considering the above, I am of the view that the judgment of the first appellate court dated 09.08.2011 is not a judgment in the eye of law. Accordingly, the question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. In view of the said finding, the question No. 1 need not be gone into at this stage. 18. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl district in RFA No. 12/2011 is hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to the said appellate court for a fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing both the sides. 19. RSA No. 6/2011 stands allowed. 20. Registry to send down the LCR forthwith. However, there will be no order as to cost.