KANAI LAL PACHAL Vs. ASOKE KUMAR DAS GUPTA
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
KANAI LAL PACHAL
ASOKE KUMAR DAS GUPTA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) ONE Nandarani Devi filed a Title Suit, being No. 61 of 1952, in the first Court of Subordinate Judge, chandernagore, on 31st of October, 1952, aga'nst Asoke Kumar Das Gupta for cancellation of, upon declaration that a deed of gift, being No. 254, daied 23rd August, 1947, purported to have had been executed by Nandarani in Lt'a-vour of the defendant Asoke Kumar das Gupta, was void, inoperative, illegal, and was not binding on the plaintiff nandarani. Asoke Kumar Das Gupta was impleaded as a major in the said suit. On 27th January, 1953, Asoke kumar Das Gupta as major verified a written statement as true to his knowledge and information and the written statement was filed in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge on 27th january, 1953. The issues were settled on llth March, 1953. Then the suit proceeded to trial. Evidence of nandarani Devi, the plaintiff, was recorded on commission on 5th July, 1953, and the evidence of one Dr. Joggeswar srimani on commission was recorded an llth September, 1955. Other witnesses for the plaintiff Nandarani were examined on 3rd October, 1955, 7th october, 1955 and llth October, 1955. The defendant's witnesses were examined on llth October, 1954, 29th November, 1955 and 3rd December, 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge delivered judgment on 14th January, 1956, dismissing the suit. Six days before the judgment was delivered, the property, which is the subject-matter of dispute, was transferred to one Kanai Fachal nandarani died on 18th January, 1956. Kanai Pachal preferred the present appeal and died during the pendency of the appeal, and had been substituted for by his heirs and legal representatives.
(2.) FOR the appellants the learned advocate Mr. Amarendra Mohan Mitra and for the respondent Asoke Kumar das Gupta, Mr. Mallick appeared. We. had the pleasure of hearing their arguments extending over a number of days. Today it came to light that on the date of filing of the plaint, that is, on 31st october, 1952, the defendant, now the respondent Asoke Kumar Das Gupta, was aged 16 years 4 months, and on the date of delivery of the judgment, he was 19 years 6 months and some days.
(3.) IT is patent from the record that the plaint was filed against a minor defendant and the minor defendant passing himself as major filed the written statement and the trial proceeded on the footing that the minor defendant was major.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.