Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Hurrechurchurn Singh, and to be signed, sealed, and registered by the Kazi of Chainpoor. The Appellant called, as a witness, the Kazi himself, from whose deposition it appears that the instrument was brought to him by Hurrechurchurn Singh, ready executed, and attested by Bhojawun Singh and Rooghoonath Singh, both of whom accompanied him on that occasion. The Kazi deposes that Hurrechurchurn Singh told him the reasons why the instrument had been executed by the Respondent; but he does not state that Hurrechurchurn Singh, or either of the two witnesses who had then attested it, represented that he had been present at the execution of it. The Kazi further deposes that he knew Hurrechurchurn Singh of old, and, therefore, he caused his attestation on the Mookternamah to be made in his (the Kazi's) presence. Hurrechurchurn Singh, on whose representation the Kazi seems to have relied in registering the instrument, was not produced as a witness in the cause. The Appellant alleged that he was kept out of the way intentionally to defeat his (the Appellant's) claim, but no evidence was adduced in support of that allegation. Bhojawun Singh, one of the witnesses to the instrument, was summoned as a witness by the Appellant; and a person answering to that name appeared before the Civil Court; but he declared that he was unable to read or write, and that he knew nothing about the Mookternamah. This person having been confronted with the Kazi, the Kazi declared that he was not the witness who had appeared before him. The real witness, Bhojawun Singh, was not produced.

The remaining witness, Rooghoonath Singh, stated. that he could not read or write, and denied that he

1867.

SEETUL PERSHAD

v.

MUSSUMAT
DOOLHIN
BADAM
KONWUR.

1867.

SEETUL PERSHAD

V.

DOOLHIN

BADAM KONWUR.

had attested any Mookternamah. Steps were taken to confront the Kazi with this witness, for the purpose of identifying him, but without success.

The

MUSSUMAT Appellant says that the witness had absconded to avoid identification. Neither the Appellant nor the Respondent produced or examined Hazaree Lall, the supposed Mookter. The Appellant states that he made every effort to do so, but ineffectually, and he suggests that Hazaree Lall was kept out of the way by the Respondent, whose servant he was. It is stated in the judgment in the High Court of Judicature, that he was forthcoming after the decision of the case in the Civil Court, but no attempt was made on either side to produce him for examination when the case was heard on appeal.

In the circumstances above stated, the Judge in the Civil Court disregarded the absence of legal proof of the execution of the Mookternamah by the Respondent, and considering that the rest of the evidence afforded the strongest presumption of its genuineness, gave a decree in full to the Appellant. On appeal to the High Court of Judicature this judgment was reversed, the Court finding that the execution of the Mookternamah was not proved, and that the absence of legal proof was not com pensated by any legitimate inference arising out of, or by any facts disclosed by, the other parts of the

case.

With this opinion their Lordships concur. They agree with the learned Judges of the High Court in considering the whole of the transactions relative to the sale and subsequent gift of the Talook, in respect of which the loan was incurred, as transactions of a very questionable character.

The claim is made for 2 lacks and Rs. 9,978; this amount includes the payments of the Government revenue, yet the property was sold by auction for Rs. 64,000. The Judge in the Civil Court considered the discrepancy in value between Rs. 64,000, the amount of sale, and the Rs. 1,80,000, the amount of the loan, as evidence that the sale was collusive; but their Lordships see no reason to assume that one sum more than the other represents the real value of the Talook. The Judges of the High Court considered all this a mere paper transaction, without any real transfer of property. The following circumstances in the case may be referred to as confirming this view. The decree of the Civil Judge in favour of Seetul Pershad includes the payment of the Government revenue, but the receipts produced are given in the name of Kishen Pershad Singh, the Manager of the co-sharers. It appears that no change of name has taken place in the Collector's Books, and that Kishen Pershad Singh remains now, as he has heretofore been, the person liable to pay the Government revenue, and to whom the receipts for payment are given. This circumstance affects seriously the argument on which the Appellant mainly relied, viz., the fact that the Respondent is in the possession of the estate, and that this is not disputed by her; but if this possession is merely nominal, it is consistent with the view taken by the High Court, that the whole matter is nothing more than a paper transaction, while the actual bona fide possession of the Respondent is inconsistent with the absence of any change of name in the Books of the Collector, and with the Government revenue being still paid by Kishen Pershad Singh.

1867.

SEETUL PERSHAD

v.

MUSSUMAT
DOOLHIN

BADAM

KONWUR.

1867.

SEETUL PERSHAD

v.

DOOLHIN

BADAM KONWUR.

In addition to this, the decree taken by consent in 1852; the purchase of the other decrees, one from the Appellant and the other from a stranger; the MUSSUMAT delay in enforcing them; the circumstance that Hazaree Lall was the Mookter of Kishen Pershad Singh, and of all the co-sharers; that the Respondent, as well as Champa Konwur, the person to whom the lease of the Talook is granted, are ladies secluded in the Zenana, and never appearing in public,—all are circumstances which cast a grave suspicion on the case, and tend to support the suggestion of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, which also seems to have been adopted by the Judges of the High Court, viz. that the whole transaction was a scheme concocted between the Rajah of Doomrao and Kishen Pershad Singh, to whom he was allied by marriage, to make it appear that the estate had been bought by the Rajah, and that it did not belong to the Pershad Singh family, while the real ownership and possession were to remain unaltered.

The Mookternamah itself is taken to be registered by the Kazi and not by the English Resident at Agra, as the other deeds were. The witnesses to the instrument itself are three; two of them are unable to sign their own names, and, therefore, their attestation is worth next to nothing; the third, Baboo Hurrechurchurn Singh, only signed the instrument at the request of the Kazi, and does not pretend to have been present when the Respondent signed. In truth, there is no attempt whatever to prove the signature of the Respondent herself by any one present at the time of such signature.

On the review of all the circumstances of the case, their Lordships concur in the opinion expressed by

the Judges of the High Court of Judicature, that there is no legal proof of the execution of the Mookternamah, and that the absence of such proof is not compensated by any legitimate inferences to be drawn from the other facts disclosed in this case. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise Her Majesty to dismiss the appeal, with costs.

1867.

SEETUL PERSHAD

v.

MUSSUMAT
DOOLHIN

BADAM

KONWUR.

[blocks in formation]

1867.

THE Appellant in this case was a Banker, carrying 10th July, on business at Delhi, and brought the present suit to establish his claim for principal and interest due on of the Gover

Present: Members of the Judicial Committee - The Right Hon. Lord Cairns, the Right Hon. Sir James William Colvile, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Vaughan Williams, and the Right Hon. Sir Richard Torin Kindersley.

Assessor: The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel.

By an Order

nor-General of India in Council, dated the 21st February, 1860, claims of loyal subjects of the British Government

against the Ex-King of Delhi, or his estate, were to be heard and adjudicated upon by the ordinary judicial Tribunals of the British Government, with the view of the Government eventually paying such claims as might be proved, out of his estate in possession.

Under this Order, where a claim was made and was justly and fairly substantiated against the Ex-King in the investigation before the Judicial Commissioner, held that such claim ought to have been allowed

« AnteriorContinua »