RAJAH HURRONATH ROY BAHADOOR Vs. RUNDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEIR Lordships are of opinion that the judgment of the High Court is correct, and that it ought to be affirmed.

(2.) THE learned Judges of the High Court in delivering their judgment, say: The question arises, Which are the particular sums of money in respect to which the Plaintiff is entitled to any charge upon the estate? It is alleged, and the recitals in the bonds are to the effect, that the moneys were borrowed for three purposes: first, litigation expenses; second, maintenance of the widow and deb-sheba; and third, Government revenue." With regard to the litigation expenses, the learned Judges disallow the amount claimed, upon the ground that the Plaintiff has not proved what those litigation expenses were; that he has not properly rendered any accounts of them, and that under those circumstances he is not entitled to a decree in respect of them. As regards the maintenance of the widow and deb-sheba they say:" We cannot say that the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree as against the estate for the sums of money said to have been advanced for maintenance and deb-sheba, except as regards the sum of Es. 2239, which is admitted by the lady in her deposition to have been received by her, and which is proved by Srinath Dobey to have been paid for maintenance and deb-sheba expenses. To this extent we think the Plaintiff is entitled to charge the estate." As regards the payment of Government revenue the learned Judges allow Rs. 12,418 10a. dp., which is proved in the judgment of the Court to have been paid by the Plaintiff as Government revenue. They thus hold the Plaintiff to be entitled to Rs. 14,657 13a. 6p., as money which had been paid by him for maintenance and deb-sheba and for Government revenue, the litigation expenses having been disallowed, and their Lordships are of opinion that the High Court rightly so held.

(3.) THEIR Lordships think that the Plaintiff ought to have seen that this sum was applied in reduction of the debt for which the estate was liable, and that the judgment of the High Court was right in deducting the whole of that sum, leaving Rs. 4657 13a.6p. as the proper sum to be allowed to him. It is contended for the Plaintiff that he was not bound to see to the application of the money. The rule laid down, in Hunoomanpershad Pandays CASE 6 Moore, Ind. Ap. Ca. 424, is this: Their Lordships think that if he does so inquire, and acts honestly, the real existence of an alleged sufficient and reasonably credited necessity is not a condition precedent to the validity of his charge, and they do not think tinder such circumstances he is bound to see to the application: of the money." But then their Lordships proceed further, and give the reason why he is not bound to see to the application of the money. They say: "The purposes for which a loan is wanted are often future, as respects the actual application, and a lender can rarely have, unless he enters on the management, the means of controlling and rightly directing the actual application." In this case the Plaintiff did have the control and actual application of the money: and having that control and application he was bound to see that the money was properly applied.