CHAKRADHAR BHUTIA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. HULLASH @ ULLASHMANI RATH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals have been filed against the confirming judgment passed in a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants.

(2.) R. S. A. No. 261 of 2009 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) At the outset, instead of dealing with the other questions of law framed, it would be appropriate to examine the substantial question of law in RSA No. 261 of 2009 whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed error in accepting the finding of the learned Trial Court that it is not improbable that there might be some other person in the same name, (.e. the name of defendant No. 1, when the LTI of the defendant No. 1 has been found to be tallying with the LTI given in Ext. D. With regard to the said question, on perusal of the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court, it is found that the learned Lower Appellate Court recorded the facts of the case till paragraph-3 of the judgment and thereafter recorded the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and discussing some of the evidence adduced by the parties in a cursory manner in paragraph-5 of the judgment concluded in paragraph-6 of the judgment that the Trial Court has made a thread bare discussion of the statements of the witnesses in the impugned judgment and he need not repeat the same. Thus concluding he discussed the evidence of D.W. 2 and D.W. 7 and upon coming to the conclusion that the appeal as well as the cross-objection has no merit, dismissed both the appeal and the cross appeal. cross-objection above appeals have been filed against the said dismissal of the appeal as well as the cross-objection by the learned Lower Appellate Court.