Skip to content


Koonjo Behary Roy Vs. Poorno Chunder Chatterjee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal450
AppellantKoonjo Behary Roy
RespondentPoorno Chunder Chatterjee
Excerpt:
parties - principal and agent--plaintiff--gomashta--beng. act viii of 1869, section 32. - richard garth, c.j.1. we think that the learned judge is quite right.2. under section 32 of the rent law a gomashta has no right to bring a suit in his own name. he can only sue in the name of his employer, and conduct the suit for him like any other agent.3. it has been contended, indeed, that he did bring this suit as agent, and that the plaint should be read in that sense; but it is difficult so to construe the language, and when we look at the verification of the plaint, it is clear that the gomashta describes himself, and not his employer, as the real plaintiff.4. this appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. We think that the learned Judge is quite right.

2. Under Section 32 of the Rent Law a gomashta has no right to bring a suit in his own name. He can only sue in the name of his employer, and conduct the suit for him like any other agent.

3. It has been contended, indeed, that he did bring this suit as agent, and that the plaint should be read in that sense; but it is difficult so to construe the language, and when we look at the verification of the plaint, it is clear that the gomashta describes himself, and not his employer, as the real plaintiff.

4. This appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.


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