Skip to content


Hari Ballav Bose and ors. Vs. Gopi Nath Rath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2Ind.Cas.635
AppellantHari Ballav Bose and ors.
RespondentGopi Nath Rath
Cases ReferredK. Vencatabalakrishna Chettiyar v. Kaliya
Excerpt:
religious endowments act (xx of 1863), section 7 - suit for account against tehsildar--maintainable by committee. - .....that the committee were empowered to sue and he made the usual decree for accounts. on appeal the subordinate judge held that the suit was not maintainable, and could be brought only by the superintendent who had been appointed by the committee. the subordinate judge has relied upon a madras case k. vencatabalakrishna chettiyar v. kaliya-naramaiyangar 5 m.h.c.r. 48 which we think is inapplicable, because there the court was dealing with a trustee and not a superintendent, and further the powers of the board of revenue to which the committee succeeded were prescribed by a local regulation which has no force in bengal. without examining more closely what were the powers of the board of revenue, we find from section 12 of act xx of 1863 that one of their powers was to recover the rent of.....
Judgment:

1. This was a suit by the Committee of a mouth appointed under Section 7 of Act XX of 1863 against a tehsildar for accounts.

2. The Munsif in an exhaustive judgment held that the Committee were empowered to sue and he made the usual decree for accounts. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not maintainable, and could be brought only by the Superintendent who had been appointed by the Committee. The Subordinate Judge has relied upon a Madras case K. Vencatabalakrishna Chettiyar v. Kaliya-naramaiyangar 5 M.H.C.R. 48 which we think is inapplicable, because there the Court was dealing with a Trustee and not a Superintendent, and further the powers of the Board of Revenue to which the Committee succeeded were prescribed by a local Regulation which has no force in Bengal. Without examining more closely what were the powers of the Board of Revenue, we find from Section 12 of Act XX of 1863 that one of their powers was to recover the rent of the land or other property transferred to the Committee under that section. The Committee has thus powers equal to those of a landlord, whereas the Superintendent occupies the position of a manager subordinate to the Committee.

3. Then it was admitted before us that the Committee is the recipient of the collections, and that the defendant's salary is paid by them. The Subordinate Judge has left out of consideration other undisputable facts which are referred to in the judgment of the Munsif, as indicating the relationship between the parties, viz., that the Committee exercise the power of dismissal, and that the defendant was dismissed by them and again reinstated on his executing a bond in favour of the members of the Committee.

4. We think it is clear from the terms of the Act and the construction hitherto placed upon it that apart from admitted facts in the case the defendant is a servant of the Committee and answerable to them, and as no other issue was raised in the lower appellate Court, we set aside the decision appealed against and restore that of the first Court with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //