ALEKH CHANDRA Vs. KRISHNA CHANDRA GAJAPAT NARAYAN DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals as well as civil Revision No. 152 of 1938 arise out of an execution proceeding and may be dealt with together.

(2.) The points which arise in these cases will be clear from the following statement of facts. The appellants are all descendants of one Bimbadhar Sahu. He had five grandsons, namely, Natobar, Bhramarbar, Achut, Kanduri and Anadi who were admittedly at one time members of a joint family. In 1923 Natobar, Bhramarbar, Achut and Kanduri, as members of the firm Padam Sahu & Co., addressed a letter to respondent 1 in which they stated that for the purpose of carrying on the business with the respondent on behalf of the above-named firm they had appointed Natobar Sahu as manager and they requested the respondent to pass orders to the effect "that Natobar may carry on all work in the manner in which Padam (uncle of Natobar) had been managing the trade business." "When this letter was written, the fifth grandson of Bimbadhar, namely, Anadi, was dead, but it is not disputed that his son Kapil was living jointly with the writers of the letter. About the same time Bhramarbar, Achut and Kanduri also executed a general power of attorney in favour of Natobar giving him extensive powers.

(3.) In 1928 the respondent obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 12,000 odd against "Padam Sahu & Co., represented by its managing director Natobar Sahu" and this decree was after, wards upheld on appeal. Before the appellate decree was passed, there was a partition in the family, but with that we are not concerned, as the decree which is being executed was passed when the family was joint. After the decree Natobar died and his two sons who are respondents 2 and 8 in the appeals were substituted in his place on ll February, 1932. The decree-holder also succeeded in substituting the appellants as judgment-debtors by applying to the Subordinate Judge at Cuttack to whom the decree had been transferred for execution, but he subsequently vacated the order mainly on the ground that the application should have been made to the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore who had passed the decree.