In the gauhati high court
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram
RSA No. 6 of 2011
R/o Bethlehem Veng, Aizawl.
Tuithiang Veng, Aizawl.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For the appellant :
For the respondent :
judgment & order :
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-
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
Eur Surg (2008) 40/1: 30–33DOI 10.1007/s10353-007-0377-6# Springer-Verlag 2008Long term results after stapled anopexy for symptomatichaemorrhoidal prolapseS. Riss1, P. Riss1, M. Schuster2, and T. Riss21 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria2 Department of Surgery, Hartmannspital, Vienna, AustriaReceived September 5, 2007; accepted
July 2013 Advising on this article: M. Lynn Crismon July 5, 2013 Should FDA backpedal on citalopram warning? New study shows higher doses not associated with arrhythmia, death Key Point Citalopram (Celexa—Forest; various generics) doses greater than 40 mg daily were not associated with increased riskof ventricular arrhythmia or all-cause, cardiac, or noncardiac mortality as compare