P.C.Mallick, J. - (1.) This is a suit to establish title in six items of movables said to be of great artistic value, for possession thereof and for damages. The said goods are old curios originally belonging to the defendant Maharaja. On June 25, 1960 and on July 25, 1960 the plaintiff claims to have purchased the same from the Maharaja along with a number of other goods for Rs. 33,650 and Rs. 24,150. These goods at the dates of sale were lying in the Durbar Hall of the Tagore Castle belonging to the Maharaja defendant. The delivery of the goods was to be given on or before December 31, 1960. All the goods sold were taken delivery of by the plaintiff from time to time except the six items which are the subject matter of this litigation. It is alleged that shortly after the sale on September 17, 1960 the defendant Maharaja purported to have hypothecated a number of artistic goods lying in the same Durbar Hall to the defendant Madhodas Mundra. The plaintiff's case is that the movables sold to the plaintiff were not hypothecated to the defendant Madhodas Mundra. Be that as it may, the plaintiff's further case is that a suit was brought by Madhodas Mundra being suit No. 309 of 1961 against the defendant Maharaja on the said hypothecation, that the suit was decreed by consent on November 28, 1961 and that pursuant to and in terms of the said decree the hypothecated goods were sold by Mr. A. K. Panja, the Receiver appointed in the said proceeding to the defendant Chow-ringhee Sales Bureau (Private) Ltd. It is pleaded that the goods sold as aforesaid included the six items of artistic goods previously sold by the defendant Maharaja to the plaintiff. It is alleged that all the defendants acted in fraud and collusion and the suit, decree and orders in that suit are all tainted with Fraud and collusion. It is further alleged that the defendant Mundra and the other defendants had full notice that the plaintiff was the owner of the said goods having purchased them previously. It is stated in the plaint that the goods are of great artistic value and damage assessed at Rs. 1 lac has been claimed. Reliefs claimed are a declaration of title, possession, Injunction and alternatively for damages assessed at Rs. 1 lac: against all the defendants except the defendant Panja. The defendants impleaded are the Maharaja, who is the seller, Madhodas Mundra, the said hypothecatee, the Chowringhee Sales Bureau, the pur-chaser from the Receiver as also the Receiver.
(2.) All the defendants except the Maharaja defendant filed written statements disputing the plaintiff's claim. All allegations of fraud and conspiracy made against the defendants have been denied. Defendant Mundra's case is that he advanced a sum of Rs. 40,000 to the Maharaja on hypothecation of various movables lying in the Durbar Hall, that he bona fide instituted a suit to enforce his claim, that in the said suit Mr. Panja was appointed Receiver and pursuant to the order of the Court the said Receiver took possession of the goods, that ultimately a decree was passed with the consent of the parties and that in terms of the consent decree the Receiver sold the goods under order of Court to the defen-ant company. The defendant Mundra denies to ave notice or knowledge of the prior sale to the plaintiff of the goods in suit. It is denied that the Maharaja or the Receiver had no power to pass title. It is contended that the company defendant acquired good tide by purchase from the Receiver. The sale by the Receiver has been confirmed by an order of the Court. It is, therefore, contended that the suit is not maintainable against him and the purchaser.
(3.) The Company defendant in its written statement denies all allegations of fraud and collusion and knowledge of the plaintiffs title in the goods, if any. The goods were in actual possession of the receiver when the goods were sold by the Receiver pursuant to the decree and order of the Court. The sale was effected by the Receiver after proper advertisement. The plaintiff's title to the goods is disputed. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable, that the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute this suit and that the same should be dismissed with costs.;