TARAMANI CHOWDHRAIN AND ANOTHER Vs. RAJLAKHI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases the important facts are as follows:--One Manikarnika obtained a decree for Rs. 812 odd, for arrears of rent, against Taramani Chowdhrain, the plaintiff, respondent in No. 2393, and certain other persons; one of whom is Rajlakhi Chowdhrain, the present special appellant before us. Taramani, however, held decrees against Manikarnika, the decrees being in her favour, not in her own right, but as guardian of her son, one Hara Chandra, a minor. In execution of those decrees, certain sums of money were placed in deposit by Manikarnika in Court to the credit of the said Taramani, as guardian of her minor son. Thereafter the said Manikarnika applied for execution of the decree for arrears of rent which she held against the present plaintiff, conjointly with the present defendants; and in execution of that decree, took away the money, which had been deposited by her to the credit of Taramani, as guardian of her minor son, Hara Chandra. Then followed the present suit. It was instituted on the part of Taramani to recover the sum of Rs. 783 odd, or thereabouts, as for contribution made in payment of the decree held by Manikarnika against her and her co-sharers jointly.

(2.) In her plaint the plaintiff sets forth, more or less distinctly, the facts which I have above mentioned, and adds that she had repaid to her minor son, Hara Chandra, the sum of money which Manikarnika had taken from Hara Chandra, in execution of the decree against her (plaintiff) and her co-sharers; and on these facts, she sued to recover the contribution in question.

(3.) The first issue between the parties was as to whether the plaintiff was competent to bring this action at all.