KAMINI KUMAR BASU Vs. BIRENDRA NATH BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: The Basu family referred to in the pleadings in the suit, owned Taltola Hat and Bazar, which was an old and established Hat of considerable repute. It was originally held on land owned by the Basu family on the bank of the river Dhaleswari. The site of the Hat had to be changed from time to time owing to the action of the river, and ultimately, in the year 1916, there was no land owned and possessed by the family on which the Hat could be held and it was removed to some lands belonging to a Mussalman family. There was a great scramble for the purchase of such lands from the different members of the Mussalman family, amongst the plaintiffs on the one hand and the principal defendants on the other. One Abdul Aziz purported to execute conveyances in favour both of the plaintiffs and the principal defendants in respect of the same land, and in the course of the proceedings taken by both parties to have their respective documents registered he sometimes admitted and sometimes denied the execution of such documents before the Sub-Registrar.

(2.) On 14 December 1916, one 'Rohini, a servant of the plaintiffs, and on their behalf, complained before the Sub-Divisional Officer of Munshigunj, against various persons, including some of the principal defendants namely: Paresh Chandra Basu, defendant 16, Gopal Chandra Basu, defendant 13, Benoy Chandra Basu, defendant 14, Krishna Kumar Basu, defendant 18, Kamini Kumar Basu, now defendant 2 (son of Ananta Kumar Basu, since deceased, who was originally defendant 2 the suit) charging them with having committed offences under Ss. 465, 467, 193 and 194, I. P. C., all of which offences were non-compoundable. The persons against whom the complaint was made are referred to for the purposes of the judgment as the accused in the criminal proceedings. The Magistrate did not issue any summons, but directed the complainant to prove his case of 8 January 1917.

(3.) The criminal proceedings served to bring matters to a head, and after its institution Ananta, whose son, Kamini, was accused 6, became exceedingly alarmed, and was very anxious to have all the disputes settled between the plaintiffs and the defendants, including the criminal proceedings. He desired that the disputes should be referred to the arbitration of A. C. Basu, a relation of the parties, and one of the pro forma defendants in the suit.