Find a Lawyer

Regular Second Appeal No. 123 of 1966, decided on 8th April 1966.

, S. 100‑Second appeal- Pre‑emption suit‑District Judge categorically stating in judgment that sole point argued before him was that of "cost of improve ments"‑Presumption that appellant had abandoned remaining grounds of attack‑Appellant filing no affidavit in support of con tention that ground of "superior right of pre‑emption" had not been abandoned‑Cannot be permitted to agitate such point.

Abdul Rahman for Appellant.

The learned counsel tried to challenge the decision of the District Judge affirming the decree for possession by pre‑emption, on the ground that the learned District Judge had not addressed himself to issue No. 1 pertaining to the preferential right of the parties in particular when the same was raised in the grounds of appeal. In para.' 3 of the judgment, the learned District Judge stated:

"The only point that has been argued before me is the estimate of the cost of improvements". In other words, the appellant had waived all the grounds on which the judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged barring that of the cost of improvements.

2. A short question which arises in this appeal is whether in such a situation the appellant can be permitted to challenge the decision of the trial Court on the ground that all the grounds on which the judgment and decree was assailed in the memoran dum of the appeal had not been dealt with by the Appellate Court. The question admits of a short answer and in the nagative in that it is well established principle of law that a party is at liberty to give up some of the grounds on which the judgment and decree is attacked and confine the challenge to one or more ground. It does happen sometime that a point is argued before the Court, but at the time of judgment the Court forgets to deal with the point. In such a situation; the proper, way of agitating the point is to make a specific grievance of this fact in the memorandum of appeal and file an affidavit in support of that ground, saying that the point was actually argued and not abandoned, and that the Court had, somehow or other, not dealt with the point. This is rendered inevitable in view of the presumption that a point not touched by the Court has been abandoned and further presumption that the official acts are presumed to have been done correctly unless proved otherwise. In the instant case, as already reproduced above, the learned District Judge has categorically stated that the sole point argued before him was that of cost of improvements. This being the position, the appellant is presumed to have abandoned the remaining grounds of attack, including that of the question of superior right of pre‑emption, and he cannot be permitted to urge that ground. Since in the instant case, the appellant has not filed any affidavit in support of the contention that the superior right of pre‑emption had not been abandoned, he cannot be permitted to agitate this point.

3. Since no other point was urged, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

S. Q. Appeal dismissed in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.