SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL Vs. JAGAT MOHINI DASS
LAWS(PVC)-1901-6-12
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on June 26,1901

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL Appellant
VERSUS
JAGAT MOHINI DASS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Banerjee, J - (1.) These two appeals arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent in the first-mentioned appeal against the Secretary of State for India in Council, Messrs. Ralli Brothers and Barada Prasad Roy Chowdhry, for recovery of possession of certain immoveable property, namely, a garden, with mesne profits. The plaint is not very artistically drawn, but the main allegations on which the suit is based are shortly these: That the property in dispute belongs to the plaintiff, that defendants No. 2, Messrs. Ralli Brothers, having instituted criminal proceedings against defendant No. 3, Barada Prasad Boy Chowdhry, and the accused not having appeared, the property in dispute was, on the 1 of July 1895, attached at the instance of defendants No. 2, under Section. 88 of the Criminal P. C., as the property of the accused; that the plaintiff was thereby dispossessed from the garden, many of the trees in it have been destroyed for want of proper care, and the garden has remained in the possession of the servants of defendant No. 1, the Secretary of State; and that, notwithstanding that the plaintiff served defendant No. 1 with a notice under Section 424 of the Civil P. C. before bringing this suit, the property in dispute has not been released to her.
(2.) The defendant No. 1 in his defence alleged that the property in dispute was attached by the Criminal Court at the instance of defendants No. 2, and that the accused Barada Prasad Boy Chowdhry did not appear within the time specified in the proclamation issued against him or at any time. He also disputed the plaintiff's title to the garden in suit, and he denied his liability generally. The defendants No. 2 denied liability. Defendant No. 3 did nob enter appearance.
(3.) The First Court gave the plaintiff a decree against defendants NoSection. 1 and 2, and directed that the amount of the mesne profits and damages be ascertained in execution of the decree. Against that decree, defendants 1 and 2 preferred separate appeals. And the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the former and decreed that of the latter.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.