GOPAL CHANDRA CHAKRABORTI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of two accused persons for stay of certain criminal proceedings against them and three others, one of whom joined in support of the rule before the Court of the Deputy Magistrate, at Alipur, pending the disposal of a Civil Suit No. 40 of 1929 before the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Alipur.

(2.) The first accused was an officer employed by one Srimati Sailasuta Debi, mother and certificated guardian of her two minor sons. The civil suit was filed by her on 25 September, 1928, on behalf of the minors against the present petitioners 2nd and 3 defendants and the 1 accused 1 defendant. It was alleged that in February, 1928 the 1 defendant, the manager of Sailasuta, was instructed to purchase a Touzi No. 151 notified for sale under the Revenue Laws, and was entrusted with rupees one lakh for the purpose, but purchased in his own name though informing Sailasuta that it had been purchased on behalf of the estate for Rs. 85,000. Then it is said she was further informed by the manager that there would be delay in getting the matter completed, as the defaulting proprietors had instituted proceedings to have the sale set aside, and for injunction meanwhile. Upon the injunction application, it is said, it came to light that the 1 defendant had fraudulently declared himself as the purchaser. This led to further enquiries and it is alleged that the 1 defendant had collusively made certain further entries in the books and utilized the one lakh to purchase the touzi in his own name, and for alleged payment upon a hand-note for Rs. 36,000 to Gopal Ch. Chakrabarty (accused No. 4), none of which transactions were authorised by the plaintiffs mother. It is then alleged that the 1 defendant is attempting to get the sale certificate in his name and deal with the property, while the 2nd and 3 defendants (the present petitioners) claim certain interests therein. Consequently the relief claimed is a declaration of the plaintiffs title and injunction restraining defendants from dealing with the property.

(3.) It appears further that in October 1928, plaintiffs applied for amendment of plaint and appointment of Receiver. The petitioners replied to that application on the 3 December 1928 alleging that the original purchase was made to the knowledge of the plaintiffs mother and with her knowledge and that she knew of the hand-note and had accepted it, and the subsequent transfer to him of a portion of the touzi was with her consent and knowledge.