SMT. SHANTI DEVI ALIAS SANTI DEVI THROUGH SHRI NAGINDER SINGH AS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY Vs. SMT. GEETA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, who has lost in the two Courts below. The suit of the plaintiff was for declaration and for permanent injunction as being owner in possession of the land comprised in khasra Nos. 604/329 605/329, 611/356/328, 613/350/330, 614/359/330, 625/353/324, 626/353/324, khewat No. 11, Khatauni No. 14, measuring 31 bighas and 9 biswas, situated in village Manma, Pargana and Tehsil Saddar, District Bilaspur and restraining the defendants permanently from causing interference in any manner in possession of the suit land as owner and alternatively for possession in case it is found that she was out of possession. The suit was contested on a number of grounds. Seven issues were settled by the learned trial Court on the pleadings. On findings rendered on these issues, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. In appeal, the learned District Judge considers the entire case of the plaintiff in paragraph 13 of the judgment without in any manner touching on four crucial issues settled before the learned trial Court which have been found in favour of the defendants, namely, issue No. 4 -B which raises question of limitation, issue No. 4 -C on the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the consolidation proceedings were completed before the institution of the suit and no case could be filed on the basis of the jamabandis which are prior to the consolidation proceedings,, issue No. 5 on the maintainability of the suit on the ground that earlier suit on the same cause of action was dismissed under order 9, Rule 8 of the CPC and lastly, defendants were tenant over the suit property as they had acquired proprietary rights under law, namely, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The issues framed were:

(2.) IN these circumstances, I am left with no option except to remand the case to the learned First Appellate Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. I do realize that a remand after a period of 20 years is a painful exercise but, nonetheless, to do complete justice to the parties it would be necessary if the appeal is decided afresh in accordance with law on the grounds raised by the plaintiff herein.

(3.) IT has also been by now well settled that the first appeal statutorily confined to record the findings on the facts and the evidence on record as well as law (See. Ayodhya Singh versus State of Bihar and Others, : (2005) 9 SCC 374; Sanjay Singh Rawat and others versus National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. and others,, (2005) 12 SCC 146; Rama Pulp & Paper Ltd. versus Maruti N. Dhotre,, (2005) 12 SCC 186; Madhukar and others versus Sangram and others, : (2001) 4 SCC 756, State of Rajasthan versus Harphool Singh (Dead) through his LRs, : (2000) 5 SCC 652 and Jagdish Chand Gupta versus Sandeep Arora : (1999) 9 SCC 192).