# Daya Ram & Ors v. Ram Sanehi & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 728 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-02-25 - **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/daya-ram-ors-v-ram-sanehi-ors-43593 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Second Appeal No. - 202 of 2016 Daya Ram & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Ram Sanehi & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Appellants Gulab Chandra Counsel for Respondents Onkar Nath Original Suit No. 152/1997 was filed for the relief of permanent injunction by plaintiffs for the property relating to plot no. 349/22 and its map was given alongwith plaint. Plaintiffs' ownership of plot no. 349/22 was not denied, but the defendants had disputed the identifiability of the disputed portion of the property on spot. Trial court had framed issues in which, inter alia, issues no. 6 and 7 related to identifiability of disputed property and as to whether disputed land is part of plot no. 349/22. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, trial court had found that disputed property is not identifiable. Civil Appeal No. 83/2012 was preferred by plaintiffs of original suit. After hearing this appeal, the first appellate court had dismissed the appeal. Out of 10 issues framed by trial court, first appellate court had taken these issues serially and decided eight of them in favour of plaintiffsappellants. The only relevant and pertinent point was not considered and decided by first appellate court and appeal was allowed by judgment dated 11.1.2016. Court held that I cannot express opinion as to whether final conclusion reached by first appellate court was erroneous or not, but it is apparent that judgment of first appellate court was silent and nonspeaking on only relevant disputed point to be determined, therefore it had caused the prejudice to legal rights of appellant. Therefore, for such serious error, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Appeal is allowed List of Cases Cited 1. State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh, AIR 2008 SC 2026 2. Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 3. Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396 (Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava) (Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission of second appeal. After hearing it appears that appeal may be decided at this stage. Therefore, I proceed accordingly. 3 All. Daya Ram & Ors. Vs Ram Sanehi & Ors. 729 2. Original Suit No. 152/1997 was filed for the relief of permanent injunction by plaintiffs for the property relating to plot no. 349/22 and its map was given alongwith plaint. Plaintiffs' ownership of plot no. 349/22 was not denied, but the defendants had disputed the identifiability of the disputed portion of the property on spot. Trial court had framed issues in which, inter alia, issues no. 6 and 7 related to identifiability of disputed property and as to whether disputed land is part of plot no. 349/22. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, trial court had found that disputed property is not identifiable and it is not proved that disputed property is part of plot no. 349/22. On the basis of this finding, trial court had dismissed the original suit. 3. Civil Appeal No. 83/2012 was preferred by plaintiffs of original suit. After hearing this appeal, the first appellate court had dismissed the appeal. Lower appellate court had not framed formal points of determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, but instead taken issues framed by trial court. Out of 10 issues framed by trial court, first appellate court had taken these issues serially and decided eight of them in favour of plaintiffs-appellants. But two issues no. 6 and 7 relating to identifiability of disputed property were not taken for consideration by first appellate court and were not decided. 4. It appears that this might have been done inadvertently but it was a serious error. In this matter, ownership of plaintiff over plot no. 349/22 was not disputed but point in dispute was as to whether disputed property of spot belonged to plot no. 349/22 or not. The only relevant and pertinent point was not considered and decided by first appellate court and appeal was allowed by judgment dated 11.1.2016 of Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Etah. This was a serious error, which had effect of causing a prejudice to rights of appellants. 5. In State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh, AIR 2008 SC 2026, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made." 6. In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "44. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite 730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable, particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision-making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected." 7. The presiding officer of any court of law is expected to decide the case before it by a proper 'decision' or 'judgment'. In Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396 the Apex Court had held: "Judgment" as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20 Rule 4(2) which says that a judgment "shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision". It should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. - - A Judge cannot merely say "suit decreed" or "suit dismissed". The whole process of reasoning has to be set out for deciding the case one way or the other. This infirmity in the present judgment is glaring and for that reason also the judgment cannot be sustained." 8. In present case no reason was given in the judgment of first appeal as to why it is proper to dismiss the appeal or why such judgment was passed without framing point of determination or without deciding main point to be determined on point of identifiability of disputed property. A perusal of impugned order shows that nothing has been written in it that may reflect that learned first appellate Court had understood facts or circumstances of the case to reach decision of dismissing the appeal. Such order cannot be accepted as a proper legal judicial order passed after following due procedure of law. Apparently such order is liable to be quashed on this count also. 9. At this stage, I cannot express opinion as to whether final conclusion reached by first appellate court was erroneous or not, but it is apparent that judgment of first appellate court was silent and non-speaking on only relevant disputed point to be determined, therefore it had caused the prejudice to legal rights of appellant. Therefore, for such serious error, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 11.1.2016 of first appellate court is set aside and the matter is remanded to first appellate court with direction to afford opportunity of hearing to parties, frame points of determination in accordance with 3 All. Smt. Javitri Devi Vs Smt. Meera Devi & Ors. 731 provisions under Order 41, Rule-31, CPC and then proceed to decide the first appeal very expeditiously afresh in accordance with law. 11. Copy of this order be sent to lower appellate court immediately. 12. Parties are directed to appear before first appellate court on 6th May, 2016. -------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Second Appeal No. - 718 of 2010 Smt. Javitri Devi ...Appellant Versus Smt. Meera Devi & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Appellant S.K. Sharma, Dr. S.B. Maurya Counsel for Respondents M.C.Tripathi, Pankaj Rai, V.S. Tripathi, Vinod Kumar Tripathi Laturi Singh was employed in Border Security Force. At the time of joining service he was not married and in service record he nominated his mother Javitri Devi (defendant-appellant) as nominee of his service emoluments etc., to be earned during service period. After the death of Laturi Singh, Original Suit No. 236/1997 was filed by plaintiff Meera Devi, alleging herself to be wife of Laturi Singh. In original suit it was pleaded that since plaintiff Meera Devi is wife of Laturi Singh, therefore, she is entitled for service emoluments, pension and other amenities. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, original suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff Meera Devi. Then Civil Appeal No. 36/2009 (Smt. Javitri Devi v. Smt. Meera Devi & Ors.) was filed by the defendant, which was heard and dismissed on 08.04.2010. Aggrieved by the judgments of trial court as well as first appellate court, the present appeal is filed. At the time of admission of Second Appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed:- "1. Whether the amount of pension and retiral benefits can be paid only to the nominee and not to other legal heirs and representative of the deceased ? If so, it's effect. 2. Whether the courts below have overlooked the evidence in deciding the case between the parties ? If so, it's effect. It is settled legal position that if the dispute arises between nominee and legal heir/ successor in interest of the deceased, then only such legal heir/ successor will have right to receive such amount of pension or retiral benefits or the amount ensured. the first substantial question of law is decided in favour of plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant. Regarding the second question the concurrent finding of fact of the two lower courts are based on acceptable reasons. On these points