In the gauhati high court

(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram AIZAWL BENCH
RSA No. 6 of 2011
H. Lalsangliana
S/o Darkhuma(L)

R/o Bethlehem Veng, Aizawl.
…. Appellant
D/o Kunga(L)
Tuithiang Veng, Aizawl.
……. Respondent

For the appellant     
For the respondent :
: 15.02.2012.
judgment & order :  
This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl district in The facts of the case, briefly stated, may be noticed at the very outset. One Lalbiakliani alongwith one Lalberemi borrowed Rs. 4 lakhs from H. Lalsangliana on 24.7.2007 with compound interest at the rate of 9% per month. She promised to repay the said money and mortgaged her LSC No. 1534/1984 with the said H. Lalsangliana on the condition that if she failed to repay the money within time, she would lose her property. They then lent the RSA No. 6 of 2011 Page 1 of 5
money tot one Vanlalruata with the same interest rate to be repaid within two months. As they failed to repay the money, H. Lalsangliana by virtue of the aforesaid promise, became the owner of the said LSC and also got the said LSC mutated in his name. After sometime, Lalbiakliani was requested by H. This led to a dispute between them which resulted in the filing of Considering the nature of the dispute, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, which was thereafter registered as LA Case No. 15/2008. The Lok Adalat assessed the amount due at Rs. 10, 31, 040.00 and passed an award on 29.05.2008 in the following terms- Lalbiakliani and Lalberemi, who in turn shall pay the said amount to H. Lalsangliana. On receipt of the said money, H. Lalsangliana would return the LSC to Lalbiakliani. 26.06.2008 was the date fixed for compliance of the But on 26.06.2008, the third party i.e., Vanlalruata did not appear before the Lok Adalat and as a result, the whole award collapsed. Thereafter, H. Lalsangliana filed Eviction Suit No. 2/2009 against Lalbiakliana in the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl district. Lalbiakliani filed her written statement and contested the suit. On consideration of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed “1. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for the
RSA No. 6 of 2011 Page 2 of 5
2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present
form and style as an eviction suit

3. Whether the alleged ‘Deed of Agreement Dt.
24/7/’07 in between the plaintiff and the
defendant is valid or not

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to possess/hold
the LSC No. Azl. 1534 of 1984

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle decree of eviction
against the defendant.”

Both the sides adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. The learned trial court on consideration of the evidence on record, by a detailed judgment and order dated 10.11.2010 decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff H. Lalsangliana. Accordingly, the learned trial court decreed the suit by ordering eviction of the defendant Lalbiakliani from the suit land. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.11.2010 of the learned trial court, the defendant preferred an appeal before learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl district, which was registered as RFA No. 12/2011. The lower appellate court by a very cryptic judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. The decision of the learned lower appellate court as expressed in paragraph 5 of the “……5. On consideration of the above facts and
circumstances, it seems to me that it is not proper to
direct the appellant to evict her land and the building
thereon without directing Vanlalruata to deposit or to
repay the debt per agreement signed by the parties
in the said Money Suit before the Lok Adalat and the
impugned judgment and order is set aside

RSA No. 6 of 2011 Page 3 of 5
Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the plaintiff has filed this second Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff. Also heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned counsel for the respondent- This court by the order dated 11.11.2011 had admitted the appeal and had framed 2(two) substantial questions of law which are as “(1) Whether the Award dt.29-5-2008 passed by the
Lok Adalat debars the appellant from filing the Eviction
Suit No.2 of 2011.

Whether the First Appellate Court was
justified in coming to its finding without considering
the submissions of the parties or the materials
available on record”

Considering the nature of the judgment in appeal passed by the learned lower appellate court, it is deemed appropriate to take up the question As has already been noted above, the appellate judgment and order is a non-speaking one, devoid of any reasons. From a reading of the said judgment, it does not appear that the learned lower appellate court had considered the evidence and the other materials on record and applied its mind The Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui (dead) by LRS –Vs-
A. Ramalingam reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240 has held that it must be
evident from the judgment of the appellate court that the court has properly appreciated the facts and evidence, applied its mind and decided the case RSA No. 6 of 2011 Page 4 of 5
considering the materials on record. The Apex Court has held that it is mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final court of fact, the first appellate court must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial court. The entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all the issues of law and fact. This is more so in a case where the judgment of the trial court is reversed by the first appellate court. Considering the above, I am of the view that the judgment of the first appellate court dated 09.08.2011 is not a judgment in the eye of law. Accordingly, the question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. In view of the said finding, the question No. 1 need not Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl district in RFA No. 12/2011 is hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to the said appellate court for a fresh decision in accordance with law after Registry to send down the LCR forthwith. However, there will be RSA No. 6 of 2011 Page 5 of 5


Sample rx report

October 16, 2009 Ms. Barbara Newman Farm Bureau Insurance C/o Adjusters’ Choice 5100 Greenwood Circle Minneapolis, MN 55331 RE: Dear Ms. Newman; I recently had the pleasure of conducting a pharmacist drug review of Ms. Joyce Kaye on October 16, 2009. This review was conducted on behalf of your client, Sister of Grace Long Term Care, and a workers compensation injury sustained by their employe

Southeast Georgia Urology Associates PATIENT INFORMATION FORM Preferred Urology Office Location: Sex: Male Race: White Black Preferred Pharmacy:____________________________ Phone:__________________ Fax:__________________ City:________________________ State:_______ Zip:___________ Reason for Appointment today (Chief Complaint) PRIMARY INSURANCE : SECONDARY INSURANCE

Copyright © 2009-2018 Drugs Today