LexSRIMATI ORAMBA SUNDARI DASI versus SRI SRI ISWAR GOPAL JIEU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1954 The State of Rajasthan v. Nath Mal and Mitha Mal. 1954 March 12. 988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] rightly held article 31(2). that the clause offended against For the foregoing reasons portion of clause 25 is void with costs. we hold that the last and dismiss the appeal Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant and for the intervener: R. H. D!tebar. SRIMA TI ORAMBA SUND ARI DASI ti. SRI SRI ISWAR GOPAL JIEU. [MuKHERJEA, VrvIAN BosE and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.) Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 (Bengal Act X of 1940), s. 36 -Scope of-Court whether competent to make an enquiry that decree-holder on record is benamidar for another person. Held, that in a proceeding under s. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940, it is not competent to the court to go behind the decree and embark on an enquiry as to whether the decree-holders on record were in fact benamidars for another person. Scope oi s. 36 of the Act discussed. Renual v. Manmatha (72 I.A. 156) and Bank of Commel'C6 Ltd. v. Amulya Krishna Basu Roy Chowdhury ( [ 1944 ]F.C.R. 126) referred to. C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1smcTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 130 and 131 of 1951. Appeals from the Judgment and Decrees, dated the 12th August, 1948, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Appeals from Original Decrees Nos. 214 of 1942 and 231 of 1943 arising from the Decrees, dated the 16th June, 1942, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Burdwan, in Money Suit No. 261 of 1932/ Miscellaneous Case No. 132 of 1941 and Money Suit No. 262 of 1932/Miscellaneous Case No. 131 of 1941. N. C. Chatterjee (A. K. Dutt and Sukumar Ghose, with him) for the appellant. Manmo!tan Mukherjee and P. K. Chatterjee for res- pondent No. I. S.C.R· SUPREME COURT REPORTS 989 1954. March 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MuKHERJEA J.-These two analogous appeals, which are between the same parties and involve the same points in dispute, are directed against a common judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated the 12th of August, 1948, by which the learned Judges affirmed, in appeal, the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan passed in two analog- ous proceedings under section 36 of the Bengal Money- Lenders Act. The facts material for our present pur- pose lie within a narrow compass and may be stated as follows : The principal respondents are certain idols, represented . by their managing Shebait Ram Govinda Roy. The idols are the family deities of the Roys of Bonpash in the district of Burdwan, and the number of Shebaits being very large, there is a recognised usage in this family that the seniormost member amongst the descendants of the founder· acts as the managing Shebait and it is he who manages the endowed properties and looks after the due perform- ance of the worship of the idols. It is not disputed by the parties that it is within the competence of the managing Shebait to borrow money to meet the neces- sities of the idols and to execute such documents as may be necessary for that purpose. Admittedly Adwaita Charan Roy was the managing Shebait of the deities from 1926 to 1930 and as Shebait, he executed a Hatchita in favour of one Nanitosh Chakraborty some time in April, 1928, on the basis of which he received advances of money from time to time from the latter. The last entry in the Hatchita was made in March, 1929, and the total amount borrowed up to that date came up to Rs. 3,801. Adwaita died in March, 1930, and after his death, Satish Chandra Roy became the managing Shebait and continued to act as such till his death in 1940. There was an adjustment of accounts between Nanitosh, the creditor, in whose favour the Hatchita was executed, and Satish Chandra, the managing Shebait some time in October, 1931, and a sum of Rs. 5,068, having been found due to the 1954 Sn'mati Oramba Sundari Dasi v. Sri Sri lswar Gopal Jieu. Mukhedea J. 1954 Srimati Oramba Sundari Dasi v. Sri Sri Iswar Gopal Jieu. Mukherjea J. 990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] creditor, Satish Chandra gave him a renewed Hatchita for that amount. It appears that while Adwaita was still the managing Shebait, a suit was instituted by some of his co-Shebaits to remove him from his offce and pending the hearing of the suit, Ramjanaki Rnv, another co-Shebait, was appointed a Receiver of the debutter property by the court. With the perm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.