NARAYAN CHANDRA NAG Vs. DINATARINI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holders, who are the appellants, filed a suit against the judgment-debtors for declaring certain documents as fraudulent. The suit, being Title Suit No. 49 of 1944 was decreed on September 24, 1945. The decree, however, contained the direction that the decree-holders must deposit in court a sum of Rs. 300/-; to the credit of the judgment-debtors, within a period of six months from the date of the decree, in default whereof the suit, in which the decree was made, shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

(2.) The judgment-debtors preferred an appeal against the decree. During the pendency of the said appeal, on April 1, 1946, the decree-holders made a deposit of- Rs. 300/-, as directed by the decree, but said to have been too late by eight days in so doing it. The appeal was allowed, on December 6, 1946. The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the claim was dismissed in its entirety.

(3.) There is dispute as to whether the plaintiffs decree-holders had also preferred a cross appeal against that portion of decree, which directed them to deposit Rs. 300/-. In the judgment under appeal there is a statement to the effect that the cross-appeal by the plaintiffs decree-holders was dismissed along with the appeal. Mr. Apurbadhan Mukherjee, learned advocate for the judgment debtors respondents, states that the aforesaid statement is a wrong statement of fact. We have no materials before us to check the: correctness or otherwise of the dispute. As Mr. Rabindranath Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the appellants, did not emphasize on this aspect of the dispute, we shall proceed on the basis that there was no cross-appeal.