RAJAH NILMONI SINGH Vs. KIRTI CHUNDER CHOWDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the written pleadings in the Courts below do not clearly indicate the real nature of the controversy between the parties. In order to explain their relative positions, it is necessary to advert to certain facts which must now be accepted, because they are either matter of mutual admission or have been affirmed by concurrent judgments.

(2.) THE Respondent, Kirti Chunder, acted at Purulia as the mokhtar and cashier of the Appellant, the Rajah Nilmoni Singh, from the 23rd of June, 1877, until the 10th of May, 1885, when he resigned his office.

(3.) IN June, 1884, Sita Churn was dismissed upon a charge of dishonesty. After a considerable lapse of time, a rumour reached the Appellant to the effect that Sita Churn had been tampered with, and had been induced to report, contrary to the fact, that no balance was due upon the Respondent's accounts. He thereupon summoned the Respondent, who was still in his service, to appear before him on the 8th of May, 1885. On that occasion the Respondent signed a document addressed to the Appellant, in which he states that there had been no examination or adjustment of his accounts, and professes his willingness to render an account from the day of appointment up to date. The document assigns no reason for its execution, and no consideration was given for it.