proved the transaction relating to the Bond; the consideration for the same; the Order of the ExKing on Colonel Skinner, and as to the receipt thereunder by Ramjee Mull and the Appellant of not more than Rs. 31,000 or Rs. 32,000 on account of the interest aforesaid; and lastly, the suit brought on the Bond in 1852, to recover the sum of Rs. 36,000 then due to the Appellant under the same. The second of these witnesses proved that he had entered in the accounts, in the course of his duty as such Gomastah, in the Bank, whatever sums of money had been received on account of such interest; and that all these accounts, and the Books of account, had been destroyed during the mutiny. The two next of the witnesses were persons who had been employed in the office of Colonel Skinner, then deceased; and they proved that instalments of different amounts were paid, under the Ex-King's Order, by the late Colonel Skinner to Ramjee Mull, and after his death to this Appellant, up to the year 1850, and to an aggregate amount of about Rs. 30,000 or Rs. 31,000, on account of interest, but that nothing had been paid on account of principal; and that the Ex-King had subsequently sent another Order to Colonel Skinner, prohibiting the payment of any more instalments, because His Majesty had asked the Appellant to lend him more money and had been refused. The remaining witnesses were the Record-keeper of the Judge's office, and the Serishtadar of the same office, who proved that the first suit was brought by the Appellant against the Ex-King in the Court of the Judge of Delhi, in 1852. On the 8th of December, 1862, the Assistant 1867. LALLA NARAIN DOSs V. THE ESTATE OF THE DELHI. 1867. LALLA NARAIN DOSS v. THE ESTATE OF THE EX-KING OF DELHI. Commissioner delivered judgment in the suit, in which, after stating the principal moneys sued for to be Rs. 36,000, the interest Rs. 37,208 13a. 3p. and the miscellaneous charges Rs. 2,050, making the aggregate claim Rs. 75,258 13a. 3p., he proceeded as follows: "The Plaintiff sues for the above amount, and says the late Ex-King of Delhi was indebted to his father Rs. 35,882 10a., for which he holds a Bond, dated 13th of April, 1840, bearing interest at 12 per cent. In payment of this debt he received nothing towards the principal, but realized Rs. 32,000 for interest only up to 1850, when the Ex-King ceased all payments, in consequence of which, in 1852, he sued in the Judge's Court for Rs. 36,000. The claim was, however, thrown out, as the late Ex-King was not amenable to the Civil Court. The Plaintiff was required to prove, first, his loyalty; and second, that the amount claimed is due. To the first point he has produced authenticated testimonials which establish his loyalty beyond a doubt. It seems that on account of this debt, and for giving protection to Dr. Dopping, that he suffered at the hands of the Ex-King and mutineers. To the second point he has produced the original Sooka or Bond which he holds from the Ex-King, which was legalized by being stamped by the Collector before it could be admitted in evidence. He could, however, bring no account Books, as they were destroyed during the late mutiny, with his property; but he has produced two witnesses to execution of Bond, two to prove that Rs. 32,000 only was realized through the late Colonel Skinner up to 1850 for interest, after which all payments ceased; and, lastly, two wit 1867 LALLA NARAIN Doss v. OF THE EX-KING OF nesses to prove that the claim was thrown out by the Judge on account of jurisdiction. I consider the Bond of Plaintiff a reliable document, but there are no papers or Books forthcoming from which the THE ESTATE amount actually realized could be estimated, and no other witnesses could, under the circumstances, be given. Two of them are retainers of the late Colonel Skinner, through whom Rs. 32,000 was paid to Plaintiff; two, again, are Plaintiff's Gomastahs, who kept his accounts, and who assert that more than Rs. 32,000 was not realized; the last two witnesses are the Serishtadar and the Record-keeper of the Judge's Court, who testify to Plaintiff's claim being instituted and thrown out on account of jurisdiction. The Plaintiff is a person of great respectability and standing, and I hardly think (judging from his position and character) that he would bring an unfounded action. It may, therefore, be assumed, that as he sued for Rs. 36,000 in 1852, the amount was then actually due, which I would recommend his receiving, with Rs. 1,000 for cost of suit. With regard to interest, which Plaintiff insists on obtaining, firstly as a right; secondly, on the score of loyalty; thirdly, on account of his losses during the mutiny, I would leave the Government to decide, as I have not awarded it in any other case, on the principle that the Government have, as a favour, taken on themselves to adjust the reasonable and just demand of the Ex-King's creditors, and the Plaintiff has already received Rs. 32,000 for interest on his debt. I, therefore, recommend the principal amount only." This judgment was then laid before the Commissioner of Delhi, Colonel G. Hamilton, who sent back 1867. LALLA NARAIN Doss v. the proceedings to the Assistant-Commissioner for further inquiry, directing that the Appellant should be questioned as to whether he had ever made any THE ESTATE application to the Resident for redress; and whether the claim was settled or rejected by that Officer; and directing also that inquiry should be made respecting the claim of Officers of the Residency, and officials employed under the Ex-King. OF THE EX-KING OF Further witnesses were examined, the effect of whose evidence was to prove that the Plaintiff brought his former suit in the Court at Delhi, in the regular way, against the Ex-King; that the Resident was not in the habit of hearing such complaints, except from those whom the King might send to him with a shooka, or order for the payment of money, and that without such an order the Resident declined to hear, and did not, in fact, hear any complaints, nor were any such preferred to him; and that the Resident did not interfere with the pecuniary transactions of the Ex-King, nor did he hear cases of debt against the King. On the 16th of March, 1853, Mr. L. Berkeley, realized only the interest of the principal amount; the Bond was recovered by the Plaintiff from the prize Agents. The Ex-King was not amenable to the Courts for debts contracted within the Palace walls. He was liable to be sued for all other debts, and hence this suit. I find the Resident or Agent to the Governor-General at Delhi could only take up those claims which the Ex-King allowed him to do. The Resident had no authority to receive applications for settlement of debts contracted by the Ex-King without the consent of the latter. I have re-considered the case, and abide by my former recommendation, viz.-That the Plaintiff receive the principal of the amount sued for, should there be property forthcoming from which the debt could be satisfied." The Commissioner, Colonel J. Hamilton, afterwards called Rajah Debee Singh as a witness; he corroborated the evidence given by the Appellant's witnesses as to the original debt, the execution of the Bond by the Ex-King, his order on Colonel Skinner, and also as to payments by him of moneys under that order. He produced the order on Colonel Skinner, and was asked how he came to hold it, and he replied "I found it in the old papers of the King. At one time the King wished the money in payment of the debts to creditors to be stopped, and got it himself from Colonel Skinner." On the 22nd of April, 1863, the Commissioner recorded his judgment as follows: "The document produced by Rajah Debee Singh confirms what I have stated above, and clearly shows that the Ex-King considered that he had finally settled the claims of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff admits that from 1850 till 1857 he received no money, and VOL. XI. U 1867. LALLA NARAIN DOES V. THE ESTATE OF THE Ex-KING OF DELHI. |