JOHN BOISOGOMOFF Vs. MANMATHA NATH MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case it appears to me that the suit has been somewhat mishandled and that the proper order is that the suit be dismissed with costs leaving Srimutty Provabati Debi to bring a suit of her own upon proper materials properly pleaded if she is advised to do so. The suit began in 1926 as a suit by a Mr. Mullick. The property in question is a house property in Kyd Street which belonged to one Ram Gopal Banerji and after his death, belonged for the estate of a Hindu widow to Joykali--his widow. Joykali died on 11 February 1920 having in the meantime assigned this property to a lady called Annapurna, who in 1926 gave a 40 years lease thereof to the defendant. Mr. Mullick brought a claim the foundation of which was carefully concealed in the plaint but which was this: he had taken title under certain mortgages made by Nani Mohan Banerji in the lifetime of Joykali. The suit therefore was a suit by a person who had prima facie no title whatever. He had purported to derive title from a man who had a mere spes successionis. When this suit brought in August 1926 in August 1926 was coming on for trial in or about July 1929, it is very intelligible that the plaintiff's advisors had to do something to reconstruct the suit which stood in manifest peril of being dismissed with costs.

(2.) In the plaint, there was some curious pleading. Srimutti Provabati Debi had originally been made a defendant. The reason of making her a defendant is explained in the plaint itself and it is this: Inasmuch as it may be contended that the defendant Srimati Provabati Debi had or has some interest in the said premises (which contention the plaintiff does not admit), the plaintiff has been advised for the sake of greater safety to make her a party defendant to this suit.

(3.) That means that the plaintiff was making her a party defendant in the suit in order that in her presence his title might be established as good so as to bind her. But the plaint goes on to say: Defendant 3 has however no objection to a decree for ejectment being passed in favour of the plaintiff against defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the said premises and the plaintiff does not therefore claim any relief against her in this suit.