RAM SABUK BOSE Vs. MONMOHINI DOSSEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case their Lordships, having heard the argument on the appeal, propose to give judgment upon its merits, and some observations will subsequently be made on the objection which was taken to the statements in the petition of appeal.

(2.) THE suit was brought by a putneedar to set aside the sale of his putnee talook, called Juggutbullubpore, which had been sold for arrears of rent through the collector, under the provisions of Kegulation VIII. of 1819, and the Defendants to the suit were the zemindar Muddun Mohun Haldar, and the purchaser at the sale, Ram Sabuk Bose. The plaint charged fraud on the part of the zemindar and the purchaser in the proceedings previous to the sale, and charged that the receipt of the notice which was served under the provisions of the Act had been forged. Various objections taken to the sale have been disposed of in favour of the Defendants, and one only remains for consideration in the present appeal; that is, whether the witnesses who have signed the receipt are substantial persons within the meaning of the Regulation.

(3.) IT appears that the receipt of the defaulter could not be obtained. His gomastah was seen, but he refused to give one; and thereupon the peon obtained the signatures of seven persons who, it is alleged, resided in the neighbourhood. At the hearing before the Principal Sudder Ameen evidence was given as to the residence and the status of three of those seven, and the Principal Sudder Ameen, being satisfied that they were substantial persons within the meaning of the Regulation, thought it unnecessary to go into evidence with respect to the other four; and he found in very distinct terms these three persons resided in the neighbourhood, and were substantial persons. This is his finding upon the facts : "The Plaintiffs take exception to the above seven persons not residing in the neighbourhood of the defaulter's mehal. To this it would be observed that Warris Mollah, one of the seven persons above alluded to, was the mundul of Juggutbullubpore, and Goluck Chowkeedar was the chowkeedar of the village. These two certainly are what the law calls' substantial' men. As regards Kabel, though not a man of much consequence, he was known to carry on the trade of a tailor in the village; consequently, a receipt signed by, among others, three such men as Warris, Goluck Chowkeedar, and Kabel, must be considered a sufficient proof for the service of notice. A more respectably signed document cannot be, from the circumstances of the country (the respectable portion of every community being at all times averse to appear in a Court of justice), expected." The objection at their Lordships' bar was directed only to one of these witnesses, Kabel, who carried on the trade of a tailor. It has not been contended that the other two did not satisfy the requirements of the statute, although in the judgment under appeal it appears to have been held by the High Court, contrary to its former decision on the same point, that two of them did not satisfy its words.