BROJENDRA KUMAR PAL Vs. PURNA CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why a judgment and decree of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Noakhali based upon an arbitration award should not be set aside, and why the suit should not be remitted to the learned Subordinate Judge to be dealt with according to law.

(2.) The facts of the case may be shortly stated. The opposite parties Puma Chandra Pal and Chandra Kumar Pal brought against the petitioners a suit for accounts (No. 246 of 1927) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Noakhali alleging that the petitioners had been engaged as gumasthas to manage a business in betel-nuts and had rendered no account. The defence was that the defendants were not servants of the plaintiffs, but were partners in the business; that plaintiffs could not sue for accounts till the business had been wound up and accounts had been rendered by the plaintiffs; and that the papers relating to the business were with the plaintiffs who were therefore not entitled to any relief.

(3.) The opposite parties also brought another suit (No. 316 of 1927) in the same Court for khas possession of a hut alleging that it was their private property and that the defendants had refused to give up possession of it. That suit was defended by petitioner 2 Jashada Kumar Pal.