Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and its functionaries.
(2.) None appears on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No. 431 of 1968. The basic issue involved in the appeal was whether the suit premises was used as an office or kutchery for collection of rent. We find that upto paragraph 25, the Division Bench noted the contentions of the parties and the evidence of the witnesses examined by them. In paragraph-26, the reliability of witnesses examined by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and its functionaries was examined and it was held that they were reliable witnesses. After that, the confusion in the judgment starts. In paragraphs 27 to 29, it has been noted as follows : "27. On proper analysis of the aforesaid oral evidence of the parties, I come to conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that Raja Bunglow was being used only for residential purpose of Raja at the time of vesting and it was unconnected with either office of Zamindari Kutchery, whereas on the other hand, the contesting de fendant was able to prove that the said Bungalow i.e. the suit premises was being used as office-cum-kutchery connected with collection of rent of the Ramgarh Es tate. 28. I, therefore, set aside the trial Courts finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent. 29. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs." ;