AMAR KRISHNA Vs. ASHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 532 of 1960 by Sri S. C. Roy, Chief Judge, First Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, dismissing the suit on contest with costs against the contesting Defendants 1, 2 and 7 and ex parte against the rests.

(2.) The salient facts of the case as appear from the pleadings are as follows :- The Plaintiff/Appellant is the owner of more or less 5 Kathas of land with buildings comprising municipal premises No. 107-A, Karaya Road, within the Police Station Ballygunge, Calcutta. This property was inherited by the Plaintiff/Appellant from his father and on partition with his brothers the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the said property. The Plaitniff has been residing in the pucca one storied building and he has let out to the tenants certain structures in the said premises. It has been stated that the Plaintiff came to be acquainted with the Defendant 3, Sri Makhenswer Mazumder, who is a Broker in connection with certain sale of lands by the Plaintiff through him at the time of marriage of his daughter and also at the time of sale of land to pay off pledges of ornaments after the Plaintiffs Jewellery shop and house were looted in 1946 riot. The defendant 3 also introduced some tenants in his house. After the loot of the Jewellery shop and the sale of the lands the Plaintiff's business was closed and his only income was the rent received from the tenants. The Defendant 3 suggested to the plaintiff to construct an upper storey on his existing building with borrowed money which the Defendant 3 would arrange to secure for him on mortgage of the said premises and the loan would be re-paid by taking advance from the tenants. At first the plaintiff did not agree, but ultimately he accepted the proposal of the Defendant 3 on being persuaded. The Defendant 3 took the Plaintiff to a Pleader Sri J. N. Mukherjee and obtained from him a letter of authority to secure a mortgage of Rs. 10,000/-. On the representation of the said lawyer Sri J. N. Mukherjee that some of his clients are moneylenders the Plaintiff/Appellant was induced to hand over the original partition deed to the Pleader on taking a receipt from him on Aug. 2, 1960.

(3.) As the period fixed in the letter of authority for securing the mortgage expired and nothing was done, the Plaintiff met Sri J. N. Mukherjee, lawyer, and insisted upon him to return the said partition deed. The said lawyer stated to the plaintiff that he made over the said document to Defendant 4 and asked the Plaintiff to take the document from the Defendant 4. The lawyer also wrote a note to that effect asking the Defendant 4 to return the document at the foot of the said receipt. The receipt was handed over to the Plaintiff. The Defendant 3 told the Plaintiff that the Defendant 4 could be found in certain tea shop near High Court and asked the Plaintiff to go there. Accordingly the Plaintiff went to the tea shop and he was introduced to a person who stated to be the Defendant 4. The Defendant 4 stated that he had made over the document to the Defendant 5 and the Defendant 5 who was there, immediately stated that he had found out a money-lender and made over the document to the Defendant 6, who was the Solicitor of the said money-lender. The Plaintiff having demanded the deed of partition, the Defendants 3, 4 and 5 took him to the office of the Defendant 6, whom the Plaintiff never knew before. The Plaintiff also did not know before the Defendants 4 and 5. The Defendant 6 told the Plaintiff that the Deed of Partition was with him and it would be returned only on his paying Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) as remuneration of himself and the other three Defendants i.e. Defendants 3, 4 and 5. It was further told that if he effected the mortgage then he would not have to pay anything.