BRAHMDEO NARAYAN Vs. BRAJBALLABH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Additional District Judge of Patna reversing a decision of the Subordinate Judge. The appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the unpaid portion of the consideration of a sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant 1 or alternatively for recovery of the subject-matter of the sale deed. There is also a prayer for the refund of Rs. 800 deposited by, the plaintiff with defendant 3 in circumstances which will appear presently, and also for one month's salary alleged to be due to the plaintiff from defendant 1. Defendant 1 is the owner of an estate in the Gaya District and the plaintiff was his Tahsildar.

(2.) In March 1935 defendant 1 initiated a prosecution against the plaintiff on a charge under Section 408, I.P.C., alleging that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1535-1-9 out of the rents which he had collected from the tenants of defendant 1. The case of defendant 1 is that in order to induce him to withdraw from this prosecution the plaintiff agreed to repay the money misappropriated and to convey 40 bighas of land which is the subject-matter of the sale deed. The plaintiff in fact deposited Rs. 800 with a person whom both parties trusted and executed a handnote for Rs. 750 in favour of a relative of defendant 1. This handnote was executed on 22 July, 1935, the same date as that on which the sale deed was executed.

(3.) It is necessary to state a few particulars with regard to the 40 bighas of land which is the subject-matter of the sale deed. It is alleged in the pleadings that while the estate of defendant 1 was under the management of the Court of Wards a decree for rent was obtained in respect of 63 bighas of land. The plaintiff, as Tahsildar of the estate, bid for this property at the sale in execution of the rent decree but instead of purchasing it on behalf of the estate he purchased it in his own name. Thereafter he reimbursed himself for the price of the property by selling 23 bighas of the land for the price which he had paid for the whole of 63 bighas. When called upon to convey to defendant 1 the remaining 40 bighas he declined to do so. This area of land therefore, although it was not in any way directly concerned with the charge of criminal misappropriation, was a matter of contention between the parties at the time when the prosecution was pending.