PROBHABATI RAY Vs. GOURISANKAR RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter I am going to give directions to the Administrator-General. Normally of course such a matter is dealt with in Chambers, and as it involves no point of law there would be no question of publicity. In this case I have asked the Reporter to be present; I am not asking that the matter should be reported. I shall simply state the facts. I think it right to state the reasons for this unusual course. I have been on this Bench nearly half my time. I have dealt exclusively with the interlocutory list or the C list; in other words, with what may be called indigenous or social litigation with which at the Bar I had nothing at all to do. Since I have taken this list dealing with infant matters, trust matters, administration suits and partition suits I have realized what an amount of suffering our system is responsible for. I have not been able to do anything to assist and I do not expect that during the rest of my time I shall be able to do anything to assist. Results are not always apparent. They are sometimes forced on one's notice. I have made up my mind that when such cases occur simply to state the facts. It is a matter for the public. If they take some interest in bettering the legal system under which in my opinion it suffers, we shall not get a better.

(2.) One such case, occurred the day before yesterday. A lady came-one Probhabati Dassi-and she had the effrontery to complain that although her husband died 16 months ago, and although there had been a consent decree passed some nine months ago, and although according to her sums amounting to Rs. 3,000 or Rs. 4,000 had been paid out of the estate on account of costs, she and her five children were starving. She has nothing left, and she sold her ornaments. That is not a matter for me. I should have told her to go to her solicitors. I might have sent her to the Registrar who is already overworked. I was unwise enough to listen to her. The attorneys were good enough to show the consent decree and a letter to the lady from the Administrator-General dated 18 July 1936. So far as I could gather the position is as follows: It was simply an application for letters of administration by this widow who has in her charge five minor children-a son and four daughters. The deceased also left a son by another wife who is a major. The widow applied for letters of administration, and the adult son filed a caveat. The party were fortunate enough to brief counsel, Mr. Chatterji and Mr. Section 0. Bose, and with their assistance a very reasonable arrangement was arrived at without contest, namely, that the widow should get the income of Rs. 5,000 during her life, that Rs, 8,000 should be set aside for the daughters marriages, the widow to draw the income of that amount until the marriage of the daughters, that half the residue should go to each son, and the widow to draw from the income of the share given to her son, Rs. 25 a month. There was also provision for the costs of the estate. The estate was to be held by the Administrator General. That was passed either last year or in the beginning of this year, and as I have said the widow had nothing for herself and her family. The letter of the Administrator-General dated 18 July 1936, I think, must have been written on information given by the lady's solicitors. It shows that there are still "adjustments" to be made against anything that, has in future to be paid to the widow.

(3.) Now as to costs: as far as I could gather the position is as follows: The first attorney I will call X not because I make any suggestion against the attorney in this case, but because they may consider that I have without their assent given them undue publicity in this matter. The first solicitor of the lady has apparently got Rs. 2,700 party and party costs and Rs. 400 as costs between attorney and client. This means Rs. 3,100. Out of this the Administrator- General has paid to the attorney a sum of Rs. 1,079 leaving due to the attorney Rs. 2,021. The attorney had either lent money to his client on a promissory note or, as he suggests, had borrowed it on her behalf from another client. Rs. 1,500 was the amount of the promissory note. There was a small commission of Rs. 35. Rs. 300 was advanced to the client leaving a sum of Rs. 1,165 to be taken by the solicitor on account of costs. Now deducting that sum there remains due to the first solicitor Rs. 856. On this promissory note there was a suit against the lady Probhabati, and this suit was settled by the Administrator-General for Rs. 1,900. This sum has been paid by the Administrator. General. I am not clear from what the solicitor stated whether it was paid to his present client or to himself, but in any event it appears not only that the lady owes Rs. 1,156 to her first attorney but that she is liable for another Rs. 735 on account of the settlement of this suit. On my calculations therefore she had to pay for costs Rs. 1,079, Rs. 1,165, Rs. 856 and Rs. 735, less Rs. 300, making in all Rs. 3,500 to her first solicitor. Yesterday I understood from the second solicitor whom I will call Y that there would be a sum something like Rs. 1,000 due from his client, but I have been informed today that a letter has been written to the Administrator. General giving a far higher figure and requesting the Administrator-General to hold the estate until payment of his costs. These costs have not been taxed.