Imatges de pÓgina
PDF
EPUB

1854.

GoSAIN

V.

[ocr errors]

proceedings in the action, ought to be stayed, and that in case the possession shall have been changed COPPEKRIST under any execution issued upon the judgment, such possession ought to be restored as the same stood GUNGAPURbefore such execution was issued; and their Lordships are further of opinion that the cause ought to be remitted back to the Supreme Court, with directions to the Supreme Court to give effect to this report and to Her Majesty's Order made thereupon: and their Lordships not thinking fit to deal with the costs incurred as aforesaid, do recommend the Supreme Court to deal with the costs of the parties incurred and to be incurred in the Court below, as to the Supreme Court, having regard to the declarations and directions aforesaid, shall seem just (a).

a

(a) Upon the doctrine of purchases made in the name of the nominee of the vendee, the nominee being the son or a person the purchaser had a natural obligation to provide for by the Roman law, see Code, lib. v. tit. xvi. “ De Donationibus inter virum et uxorem,&c. sec. 25 ; l'oct. Pand. lib. xxxix. tit. V., vi. ; by the Scotch law, Stairs Inst. of the Law of Scotland, b. i. tit. vii. sec. 2, and in addition to the English authorities cited in the argument, Finch v. Finch, 15 Ves. 43 ; Rider v. Kidder, 10 Ves. 360 ; Collinson v. Collinson, 3 De G. Mac. & Gor. 409 ; Prankerd v. Prankerd, 1 Sim. & Stu. 1 ; Skeats v. Skeats, 2 You. & Coll. N. R. 9, 11. See also, by the Hindoo law, Sibchunder Kur v. Nund Gopal Vullick, S.D.A. Dec. Beng. 605; Rungama v. Atchama, 4 Moore's Ind. App. Cases, 1; by the Mahomedan law, Ruggoo Mull v. Bunseedhur, 5 Dec. N. W. P. 147; Newazee Feraush v. Mussummaut Atlussee, 1 Ben, Sud. Dew. Rep. 31.

DWARKA Doss

Appellant,

AND

BABOO JANKEE Doss

Respondent.*

On appeul from the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut at

Agra.

6th & 7th Tus

Feb.,

In an action by a

&
1855.

was an appeal from a judgment of the Sudder Dewanny Court at Agra, which reversed a decree

of the Sudder Ameen of the Zilluh Court of Benares, banking firm against an

in the Appellant's favour, in an action brought by other firm to him in that Court against the Respondent for rerecover a balance upon an covery of Rs. 20,119. 3a. 9p., the alleged amount account between them,

of the balance due to him of an account between the Plaintiff

them. Both parties were bankers, having houses of put in evidence the ac- business at Calcutta and Benares. count-books of his firm,

The facts of the case and the pleadings are so fully and the In

stated in the judgment as to render any further statespector of the Court certi

ment unnecessary. fied that the regularly

* Present: The Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, the Right kept, consist- Hon. Lord Justice Knight Bruce, the Right Hon. Sir Edward ently with the Ryan, and the Right Hon. Lord Justice Turner. rules of banking, and that they agreed with the account rendered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The Plaintiff, however, examined no witness to prove that the books were regularly kept, or the general accuracy of the particular charges constituting the demand; he proved admissions by the Defendant of the correctness of the account and of an award in his favour of one of the disputed items. The Defendant in his defence did not deny the

accuracy of the Appellant's account, or of the books put in evidence, but objected to two items in the account, and claimed a set-off, but examined no witnesses to rebut the plaintiff's case.

Held (reversing the Sudder Court's decree) that although the Plaintiff's books, and the Inspector's report, were not conclusive evidence, yet that tho necessity of strict proof was removed by the admission of the Defendant, and the fact of the absence by him of any evidence to impeach the accuracy of the accounts, the disputed items being satisfactorily accounted for.

books were

1855.

. BABoo JANKEE Doss.

The case was argued by
Mr. Leith and Mr. Fulton for the Appellant, Dwarka Doss

and
Mr. W. II. IVatson, Q.C., and Mr. Field, for

the Respondent.
The argument was confined to the question of the
sufficiency of the evidence adduced by the Appellant
of the balance claimed upon the accounts between
him and the Respondent. The Respondent insisted
that the account books of the Appellant were not ad-
missible or sufficient evidence of his liability. On
the other hand, the Appellant submitted that there
were sufficient admissions made by the Respondent
by the pleadings and evidence of the disputed items,
coupled with the fact of his not going into evidence
to rebut the Appellant's case, to sustain the judgment
of the Zillah Court.

The authorities cited were Baboo Benee Suharee v.
Baboo Hurkishen Doss (a), and Macpherson “ On Civil
Procedure,” pp. 255, 271.
The judgment of their Lordships was pronounced by

The Right Hon. T. PEMBERTON LEIGH : In this case, an action was brought by the Appel- 10th Feb., lant against the Respondent to recover the alleged balance of an account. Some evidence was given on the part of the Plaintiff. No evidence whatever was given on the part of the Defendant; and the sole question which their Lordships have to consider is this, whether such a case is made out on the part of the Plaintiff as to call for an answer on the part of

(a) 2 Knapp, P. C. Cases, 255 ; and see Rai Sri Kishen v. Rai Huri Kishen, 5 Moore's Ind. App. Cases, 432, and authorities col. lected at p. 446.

1855.

VOL. VI.

L

1855.

BABoo

the Defendant, and, in default of any answer being Dwarka Doss given, to entitle him to a verdict.

The Appellant and Respondent are both bankers Jankee Doss. in extensive business in India. The Appellant has

one house of business in Benares, and another in Calcutta. The Respondent has a house of business in Benares, and none at Calcutta. He has other houses of business, at Patna, Chupruh, and various other places in India. The Benares firm of the Respondent employed the Calcutta firm of the Appellant as their agents, and this agency continued for a great number of years. The transactions were extremely extensive, and it is represented on the part of the Respondent that they amounted, as he says, to lucs upon lacs of

, rupees.” It would be in the ordinary course of such business that the account should be regularly transmitted in each year by the agents of the house to the principal, showing the transactions which had taken place, and the balance which resulted upon those accounts. And it is reasonable to presume that that which was the ordinary course was pursued in this case.

It is so alleged on the part of the Appellant, and is nowhere distinctly denied on the part of the Respondent.

On the close of the account in the year 1849 (the mercantile year ending, as we take it from the papers, in the month of July or August), an account was delivered by the Appellant to the Respondent in respect of the transactions between the Respondent's Benares firm and the Appellant's Calcutta firm, on which a balance of between Rs. 18,000 and Rs. 19,000 was shown to be due from the Respondent to the Appellant. Payment of this balance was demanded ; and it

. is stated on the part of the Appellant that one item,

[ocr errors]

v. BABon

constituting a portion of that balance, was objected to; an item of Rs. 4,800 and odd. That was an item Dwarka Doss which had not occurred in the year to which the account related, but two or three years before, and it JANKwe Doss. consisted of the value of certain gold coins which had been sent by the Appellant, or by his firm, to the Respondent, but which the Respondent alleged had never been received by him.

This matter, it is agreed on all sides, was referred to arbitration, and an award was made, as the Appellant alleged, by which that point was decided in his favour.

The Respondent persisting in a refusal to pay this balance, on the 24th of December, 1819, the plaint in this suit was filed. The plaint alleged the facts which I have already stated, but it was not until the 12th of April, 1850, that the Respondent filed any answer to that plaint. The effect of that answer is very fairly stated in the Respondeut's case. IIe says, that “he

He

, denies the correctness of the Appellant's claim, and claims a nonsuit.” In effect, he pleads what may be called a general issue. " He also insists that the suit was not property bought at Benares ,;" and he makes various other technical objections. He then “alleges that the Appellant has included in his claim a sum of Rs. 1,500 relating to the Chuprah agency, of which no particulars are given.” He then states as an objection, that various other items in respect of other agencies are not included in this account. Ho objects to the award on the grounds of want of notice, and of partiality and misconduct; and states that "the parcel in question was never dispatched from Calcutta, and claims fuller details of the Appellant's accounts."

The agency, therefore, and the fact of the submis

a

« AnteriorContinua »