STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) AND ORS. v. BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD. AND ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Aftab Alam
Judgment Date: 2008-04-09
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The High Court’s conclusion to dismiss the appeal without costs was set aside, the Trial Court’s finding that the premises were used as an office-cum-kutchery for rent collection was restored, and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and ors.

Respondents

Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. and ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ratan Kumar Choudhuri

Counsels for Respondents

• R.C. Kohli
• Ashok Mathur

Case Synopsis & Summary

This civil appeal concerns the status of the Raja Bunglow—the subject premises of a vesting dispute—specifically whether it was used primarily for the Raja’s residential purposes at vesting or as an office-cum-kutchery for the Ramgarh Estate’s rent collection. The Patna High Court, in First Appeal No. 431 of 1968, had set aside the Trial Court’s finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for rent collection and then dismissed the appeal without costs, creating a discordant position with its own earlier findings. The Supreme Court undertook a close analysis of the High Court’s paragraphs 27–29, which revealed a conflict: while the High Court accepted the reliability of the State’s witnesses, it simultaneously concluded that the trial Court’s finding could not be maintained. The Court clarified that the only tenable conclusion, given the evidence, was that the suit premises functioned as an office-cum-kutchery connected with rent collection, and that the High Court’s conclusions were inconsistent with its findings. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the appeal should be allowed in terms of the High Court’s own findings, restored the earlier fact-finding, and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The judgment underscores consistency between findings and conclusions in appellate reasoning.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the High Court’s conclusion dismissing the appeal was inconsistent with its own findings, particularly with respect to the trial Court’s finding that the suit premises were not primarily an office or kutchery for rent collection. They contended that the evidence supported the trial Court’s view and that, having regard to the High Court’s analysis up to paragraph 25 and its acceptance of witness reliability, the only proper course was to allow the appeal and restore the trial Court’s finding, thereby dismissing the suit. They urged harmony between the Court’s conclusions and the underlying findings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the bungalow Raja Bunglow was being used as an office-cum-kutchery connected with rent collection for the Ramgarh Estate, a position supported by the evidence and witness testimony, and that the High Court correctly found the trial Court’s conclusion unsustainable. They pressed that the evidence warranted a finding that the premises served administrative functions rather than mere residential purposes, justifying the High Court’s disposition and the resulting dismissal of the appeal.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008) 6 S.C.R. 331 A t B ~ * # STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) AND ORS. _v._ # BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.1139 of 2002) ## APRIL 09, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] - _Appeal High Court dismissed appeal even after setting aside the findings recorded by Trial Court- Propriety of- Held:_ c - _Not proper Conclusions and findings of the High Court did_ - _not go together The appeal deserved to be allowed._ Disputes arose as to whether the premises in question (Raja Bunglow) was being used for residential purpose of the Raja at the time of vesting or as a officeD cum-kutchery for collection of rent of the Ramgarh Estate. ~ The High Court set aside the Trial Court's finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent, and yet thereafter dismissed appeal E against the judgment of Trial Court. Hence the present appeal. ## Allowing the appeal, the Court " ... HELD: The High Court held that the Trial Court's F finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent, cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the Trial Court's finding was set aside. If that be so, the only conclusion that could have been arrived at was to allow the appeal. Strangely, the High Court dismissed the appeal, without costs. The conclusions and[G ] the findings do not go together. The High Court's findings are clearly to the effect that the suit premises was used as an office or kutchery for collection of rent. In the circumstances, the conclusion of the High Court about 331 H F H 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 6 S.C.R. A **the appeal being without merit is set aside. As** a **consequence, the plaintiff's suit stands dismissed. The appeal deserves to be allowed in terms of the findings recorded in the impugned judgment of High Court. [Paras 4, 5] [333-B, C, D, E]** B CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1139 of 2002. .. • From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1999 of the High Court of Patna in A.O.D. No. 431/1968. C Ratan Kumar Choudhuri for the Appellants. R.C. Kohli, (NP), Ashok Mathur (NP) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D **DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** 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. E 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 F 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: G H "27. On proper analysis of the aforesaid oral evidence of the parties, I come to conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that Raja Bung low 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 defendant was 333 STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) AND ORS. _v._ BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD. AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] ' / 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 Estate. 28. I, therefore, set aside the trial Court's finding that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent. A B 29. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs." 4. A conjoint reading of paragraphs 27 and 28 makes the position clear that the High Court held that the Trial Court's finding[c ] that the suit premises was not primarily an office or kutchery for collection of rent, cannot be maintained. Accordingly, in paragraph-28, the Trial Court's finding was set aside. If that be so, the only conclusion that could have been arrived at was to allow the appeal. Strangely, the High Court dismissed the D appeal, without costs. ~· """"--'.l 5. The conclusions and the findings do not go together. The High Courts' findings at paragraphs 27 and 28 are clearly to the effect that the Suit premises was used as an office or Kutchery for collection of rent. In the circumstances, we set aside the conclusion of the High Court about the appeal being without merit. As a consequence, the plaintiff's Suit stands dismissed. The appeal deserves to be allowed in terms of the findings recorded at paragraphs 27 and 28 of the impugned judgment which we direct. B.B.B. Appeal allowed. E F / +