NONI GOPAL BASU Vs. TARESH CHANDRA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the judgment of Mr. Justice Richardson cannot stand.

(2.) The facts are simple. The manager of an infant used the money of the infant for the purpose of buying property on the infant s behalf at an execution sale. He admits that the infant was the real purchaser, but he maintains that he is able to deprive the infant of the property because of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If that were the true view, then that section of the Code would be the occasion of a grave fraud. It appears to me that the conduct of defendant No. 1, the manager, was and has been found to be fraudulent and Section 317 does not furnish any answer to the plaintiff s claim.

(3.) We must, therefore, reverse the judgment of Mr. Justice Richardson and restore the decree of the Subordinate Judge.