Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Protap Chunder Banerjee and ors. Vs. Krishto Kishore Shaha and ors.

Protap Chunder Banerjee and ors. vs Krishto Kishore Shaha and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided May 18, 1882
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/863591

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Plaint, Verification of - Allegation of fraud--Practice. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Protap Chunder Banerjee and ors.

Respondent

Krishto Kishore Shaha and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
(1882)ILR8Cal885

Excerpt

plaint, verification of - allegation of fraud--practice. - .....quite right.3. we also entirely agree with what he says at the commencement of his judgment, and as that is a matter which concerns civil courts generally, we think it right to add a few words upon the subject.4. the suit was brought to set aside a sale in execution of a decree, upon the ground that the land, the subject of the sale, was in part the plaintiff's property. their case was, that they had been fraudulently and collusively kept in ignorance of the proceedings in the suit and of the execution and sale which followed, and that all the defendants were either parties or privies to the fraud. in fact, if the plaintiffs were right, the fraud that was practised upon them was undoubtedly a very gross one.5. now, this is precisely the sort of case in which the plaintiffs should have been required, in the absence of some very good reason to the contrary, to verify the plaint themselves; one of them, at any rate, should have done so. instead of this the plaint was not even verified by a pleader or authorized mooktear. it professes to be verified by a person who calls himself an agent of the plaintiffs,' but who acts apparently without any mooktear-nama, and who, according to the finding of the judge, was an entire stranger.6. this certainly ought not to have been allowed by the munsif. in a case where the plaintiffs set up a gross fraud of this kind, and where the case depends mainly, as the judge considers that it did, upon the personal knowledge of the plaintiffs, it was only right that the plaintiffs, or one of them, should have been required to verify the plaint.7. the appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. We think that this appeal must be dismissed. The plaintiffs, in order to establish their case, were bound to prove that the irregularities mentioned in the plaint had been committed with a view to defraud them. Those irregularities might have been as well the result of mistake as of fraud. It was necessary, therefore, for the plaintiffs to prove the fraud, and fraud has been negatived by both the lower Courts. They also find that the purchaser at the sale was a bona fide purchaser for value.

2. The Judge's decision, therefore, was quite right.

3. We also entirely agree with what he says at the commencement of his judgment, and as that is a matter which concerns Civil Courts generally, we think it right to add a few words upon the subject.

4. The suit was brought to set aside a sale in execution of a decree, upon the ground that the land, the subject of the sale, was in part the plaintiff's property. Their case was, that they had been fraudulently and collusively kept in ignorance of the proceedings in the suit and of the execution and sale which followed, and that all the defendants were either parties or privies to the fraud. In fact, if the plaintiffs were right, the fraud that was practised upon them was undoubtedly a very gross one.

5. Now, this is precisely the sort of case in which the plaintiffs should have been required, in the absence of some very good reason to the contrary, to verify the plaint themselves; one of them, at any rate, should have done so. Instead of this the plaint was not even verified by a pleader or authorized mooktear. It professes to be verified by a person who calls himself an agent of the plaintiffs,' but who acts apparently without any mooktear-nama, and who, according to the finding of the Judge, was an entire stranger.

6. This certainly ought not to have been allowed by the Munsif. In a case where the plaintiffs set up a gross fraud of this kind, and where the case depends mainly, as the Judge considers that it did, upon the personal knowledge of the plaintiffs, it was only right that the plaintiffs, or one of them, should have been required to verify the plaint.

7. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial