PARTAB BAHADUR SINGH Vs. CHITPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is the sequel, or, more properly, the second part, of a case which has already occupied their Lordships' attention (I.L.R., 11 Cal., 61; L.R., 11 I.A., 211. Another suit brought by the Rani against Ajit Singh was barred by limitation; see I.L.R., 15 Cal., 58).

(2.) THE creditor, Raja Ajit, who is now represented by the appellant, sued his debtor Raja Bijai, now represented by Raja Chitpal and others, for payment of certain sums which were stated to be vouched by a number of different securities. The Court below had given him a decree for a very considerable amount. As the result of the argument before their Lordships this decree was recalled, and the case was remitted with certain directions to the Court below; and as a key to the meaning of these directions, it seems desirable to read the following passage in the judgment then delivered by this Board: "It is true that there is no direct evidence in the record of a conspiracy between Ajit and Wahaj-ud-din; but they acted together against the interest of this unfortunate talukdar," the talukdar being the defendant in the case. "His agent induced him to sign a number of bonds for sums of money which have been found not to be necessary for the purposes of the estate; and Ajit, whose duty as a relative, a friend, and a neighbour of Bijai, a man of weak intellect, was to have warned Bijai against the proceedings which were going on to his own ruin, so far from doing this, acts in concert with the unfaithful steward, and not only does he act in concert with him, but he profits principally by their joint transactions,"

(3.) THE two classes of advances then which were to be allowed were, first, advances which the creditor was able to prove had been paid to and received by Bijai Bahadur personally; secondly, advances which the creditor was able to show Wahaj-ud-din, the manager, would have been justified in borrowing in the course of a prudent management of his principal's estate, That being so, an investigation has taken place in the Court below, and the questions which are now raised are really questions of accounting, but to some extent they raised questions of principle. Their Lordships, as the result of full argument, have come to the conclusion that there is really no difficulty attending the decision of the case, that the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner is sound, and that it has been put upon grounds which their Lordships are prepared to affirm.