KALI CHARAN SINGHA Vs. BIBHUTI BHUSAN SINGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against an order of the Munsif of Rampurhat, dated 17 March 1932. For the purpose of making it clear how that order came into existence, it is necessary to recite certain facts. The present petitioner, Kali Charan Singha, on 6 December 1923, obtained decrees in his favour in eighteen suits which he had brought against a lady named Kiranbala and another lady named Bindubashini. A number of different bargadars holding under them were also defendants in the suits. The suits were for the recovery of khas possession and mesne profits, in respect of a two-thirds share in certain properties, the plaintiff's right to that two-thirds share having already been established in antecedent litigation. It is to be observed that in those eighteen suits both Kiranbala and Bindubasini appeared and made various defences to the plaintiff's claim. The decrees having been made in favour of the plaintiff the defendants appealed and ultimately the matters in issue between the parties came before this Court in second appeal and the original decrees were affirmed by this Court on 9 August 1928, it being declared that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession which he was claiming and also to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 4 until recovery of possession.

(2.) Early in the year 1929 the present petitioner Kali Charan Singha, as the decree-holder in the eighteen suits, applied for execution of those decrees and as a result of the execution proceedings he obtained khas possession of the lands claimed by him, but the matter of payment of the amount awarded by way of mesne profits was not proceeded with at that time, as negotiations were opened between the parties with regard to the payment of the mesne profits and costs. Eventually the execution proceedings aforementioned came to an end for want of prosecution. The parties however did not come to any settlement in the matter of the mesne profits and accordingly Kali Charan Singha, on 10 November 1930, instituted eighteen fresh execution cases and these are the cases out of which the order now complained of arises. Those cases were described as Title Execution Cases Nos. 117 to 134 of 1930, in the first Court of the Munsif of Rampurhat and in them the petitioner as decree-holder sought to recover mesne profits at the rate awarded to him for the period of three years prior to the institution of the suits and up to the date of delivery of possession.

(3.) In those execution cases Kiranbala, as one of the judgment-debtors lodged objections under Section 47, Civil P.C, and the whole matter was then registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 37 of 1932. Kiranbala's objection took the form of an allegation that the decrees could not be put to execution because the amount due under them in respect of mesne profits had already in effect been paid upon an adjustment between the parties. The objection was eventually dismissed in default of prosecution. Subsequently (according to the statements made by the petitioner in his present petition) a man named Surendra Narain Singha who is said to be the reversionary heir of Shyama Charan, the husband of Kiranbala and who had been looking after and managing her affairs and conducting all the litigation on her behalf caused his sister Bindubasini (who as already mentioned was one of the defendants in the original suits) together with one Sushila Sundari, the widow of his predeceased brother Ashutosh Singha, to institute Proceedings in Lunacy (numbered 14 of 1931) under the provisions of Act 4 of 1912, in the Court of the District Judge, Murshidabad, praying that the judgment-debtor Kiranbala should be adjudged a lunatic and also praying for the appointment of Surendra Narain as guardian of her person. At the time when the order now complained of was made the lunacy matter was still pending though one. Bibhuti Bhusan Singha, a pleader practising at Barhampur, had been appointed interim receiver of the estate of Kiranbala. Bibhuti Bhusan Singha as such receiver on 15 January 1932 put forward a further objection in the eighteen execution cases under Section 47, Civil P.C., alleging therein that Kiranbala had been a lunatic and of unsound mind from a time long antecedent to the institution of the eighteen suits brought against her by the present petitioner and that therefore all the decrees made in those eighteen suits including apparently the final decrees made by the High Court were made without jurisdiction and void inasmuch as the judgment-debtor Kiranbala had not been properly "represented" as a lunatic at the time when those decrees were made.