Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur vs Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi, Bhaba Prasad ... on 28 June, 1911
9. This is essentially the same view as that taken by the learned Judges in the lower appellate Court, and any other view would in our opinion conflict with the rule laid down in Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Hemanta Kumari ('08) 31 IA 203. It was further argued that in view of the definite findings of the Court of first instance, the learned subordinate Judge's finding that the suit was brought under the inspiration of the shebait and that the prayers for relief against the latter were added merely as a dodge to enable the plaintiff to maintain the suit, was not justified. In the argument it was pointed out that the learned Munsif gave a number of reasons for his finding, and that those reasons were not discussed in the judgment of the learned subordinate Judge. The learned subordinate Judge gave reasons for his finding, which seemed to him conclusive. We are unable to hold that a judgment of reversal is not a proper judgment merely because all the reasons given by the original Court are not discussed. If the reasons given by the appellate Court are so cogent as to justify the finding, no discussion of other less convincing reasons seems to us necessary. In the present case, the reasons given by the learned subordinate Judge were of such a nature; and omission to discuss all the reasons given by the original Court was perfectly justified. In the result therefore we are of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed. A cross-objection was filed by some of the transferee respondents. In our opinion, it is not necessary for us to consider that cross-objection at all and we do not therefore decide any of the questions raised therein. Hence ordered that the appeal is dismissed with costs. No order is passed on the cross-objection.